AnCapandThankful

Agree almost completely with this. The Katavans eat upwards of 60% of their diet from carbs, and the Inuit at nearly 0. I do think, however, that the total amount of carbs can be detrimental over the long term if they are abnormally high (from an evolutionary perspective). However, the Good Lord (sarcasm) didn't give us the type of food that will lead to super high levels of carbs (i.e., potatoes only contain around 40 grams of carbs for a large).

Sure, if you ingest virtually no carbs you can't get hyperglycemic, you get hypoglycemic instead. Why be so evasive, just tell us your numbers. Your chance of having a heart attack are low, perhaps you are under 50?If you are eating a high fat diet your chances of having atherosclerosis are high. Most people eating fatty diets have detectable atheroscerotic lessions developig from their childhood. Can you show me evidence that a high fat diet leads to atherosclerosis?

Thanks for the response. I'll look into simulation theory. I'm not saying I want to believe that--I don't really have a preference other than objective truth, but I always seemed to get argued down to that possibility, and I simply couldn't deny it.

Sure, if you ingest virtually no carbs you can't get hyperglycemic, you get hypoglycemic instead. Why be so evasive, just tell us your numbers. Your chance of having a heart attack are low, perhaps you are under 50?If you are eating a high fat diet your chances of having atherosclerosis are high. Most people eating fatty diets have detectable atheroscerotic lessions developig from their childhood. Not to mention, the brain can turn fat into glucose with very little effort.

Sure, if you ingest virtually no carbs you can't get hyperglycemic, you get hypoglycemic instead. Why be so evasive, just tell us your numbers. Your chance of having a heart attack are low, perhaps you are under 50?If you are eating a high fat diet your chances of having atherosclerosis are high. Most people eating fatty diets have detectable atheroscerotic lessions developig from their childhood. You don't necessarily get hypoglycemic. Look at the Inuit. If i was, I certainly had no ill effects. HDL: 50 LDL : 120 Tri: 90 Like I said, cholesterol doesn't matter nearly as much as people have said. Seventy-five percent of people simply are not affected by the fat intake in the diet and the cholesterol in the blood. If you could please show me one evolutionary example where people ate less than 10% of calories as fat, I'd appreciate it.

Listen to the first minute of the program again. Fat causes blood cells to become sticky and aggregate as was clearly demonstrated at the start of the program. Fat forms a direct physical barrier limiting cellular sugar uptake. If he just ate the bread (no fat), he'd be fine. Conclusion: If you eat too much fat and carbs you get hyperglycemic. Your personal experience is of hypoglycemia because you don't eat the carbs your body needs to function properly. Conclusion: If you eat too much fat and not enough carbs you get hypoglycemic. The healthy thing to do is eat enough carbs and limit fat intake. Also, I saw no ill effects at all from eating low carb. People eat low carb constantly for years and see no ill consequences of hypoglycemia. Quoting wikipedia doesn't make it so.

Listen to the first minute of the program again. Fat causes blood cells to become sticky and aggregate as was clearly demonstrated at the start of the program. Fat forms a direct physical barrier limiting cellular sugar uptake. If he just ate the bread (no fat), he'd be fine. Conclusion: If you eat too much fat and carbs you get hyperglycemic. Your personal experience is of hypoglycemia because you don't eat the carbs your body needs to function properly. Conclusion: If you eat too much fat and not enough carbs you get hypoglycemic. The healthy thing to do is eat enough carbs and limit fat intake. I agree with you that consuming high fat and high carb is extremely unhealthy, more unhealthy than eating high carb. Limiting fat intake, however, is both wrong evolutionary and from a science persepective. If the hypoglcemia is true, then how did the Inuit not simply die off? They actively refused to eat plant material, feeling it was beneath them. EDITED first sentence.

That's borderline hypoglycemic, which is also not healthy: "Research in healthy adults shows that mental efficiency declines slightly but measurably as blood glucose falls below 65 mg/dL (3.6 mM) in many people." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoglycemia So hows your cholesterol doing? Admittedly, I was going for extremely low carb the week I was tested, to cut a bit more fat (think less than 10 grams per day). I would imagine it would rise some when I eat usual, which is between 50-100 grams of carbs. My point being that the nonsense in that video, was just that, nonsense--fat doesn't raise glucose levels. Cholesterol is fine. Got checked two weeks ago. If you think those numbers mean anything, which I doubt. According to the Framingham Heart Disease calculator, I have a virtually 0% chance of developing heart disease in the next ten years.

Insulin resitance is modulated by fat intake: [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42LfH8veEU] http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/16/5/728 Effects of Age and Body Fat Insulin Resistance in Healthy Men Guenther Boden, MD, Xinhua Chen, MD, Richard A DeSantis, PHD, MD and Zebulon Kendrick, PHD RESULTS Body fat (kg fat mass or in percentage of body weight), rates of insulin-stimulated leg blood flow, glucose uptake, oxidation, and storage were all similar in elderly and younger men. Body fat (in percentage of body weight) of both elderly and younger men correlated closely and negatively with glucose uptake (r = −0.73, P < 0.01), glucose oxidation (r = −0.67, P < 0.05), and with glucose storage (r = −0.65, P < 0.05). In contrast, age did not correlate significantly with any parameter of glucose metabolism. CONCLUSIONS Our data suggested that insulin sensitivity in men until around 60–70 yr of age appears to be determined more by body fat than by age. Last thing. This guy CARB LOADED. He wasn't simply consuming fat to make his point, he was consuming massive amounts of white flour. Which is carbing up, and that destroyed his blood levels. Not sure if you're trying to agree with me here?

Insulin resitance is modulated by fat intake: [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42LfH8veEU] http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/16/5/728 Effects of Age and Body Fat Insulin Resistance in Healthy Men Guenther Boden, MD, Xinhua Chen, MD, Richard A DeSantis, PHD, MD and Zebulon Kendrick, PHD RESULTS Body fat (kg fat mass or in percentage of body weight), rates of insulin-stimulated leg blood flow, glucose uptake, oxidation, and storage were all similar in elderly and younger men. Body fat (in percentage of body weight) of both elderly and younger men correlated closely and negatively with glucose uptake (r = −0.73, P < 0.01), glucose oxidation (r = −0.67, P < 0.05), and with glucose storage (r = −0.65, P < 0.05). In contrast, age did not correlate significantly with any parameter of glucose metabolism. CONCLUSIONS Our data suggested that insulin sensitivity in men until around 60–70 yr of age appears to be determined more by body fat than by age. Sorry, didn't see the last part here. You do realize what you sent me has nothing to do wtih fat intake? I thas to do with body fat percentage, which is what I agree with. However, what increases body fat percentage--insulin, it's a cyclic thing. I agree with you.

Insulin resitance is modulated by fat intake: [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42LfH8veEU] I've been eating a high fat diet for two years, blood glucose levels are around 59--not fasted. That is, literally, the first time I've seen something like that ever been discussed, and I study this stuff constantly.

Since you ask about Gary Taubes, here's the first of a 16 part expose on his discredited dissertation... [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QImWYirF0es] Have you read the book?

How are there this many posts and not a single mention of Gary Taubes or Good Calories, Bad Calories? You are completely wrong about weight gain. The science behind it isn't even that complex, but I'd begin looking into insulin resistance. You're young, your body hasn't begun to build up a resistance. The calories in, calories out hypothesis is silly at best. You're right that high caliber athletes need high carbs, because your body needs glucose for intense movements, however, for nonaerobic exercise this isn't needed. If you're not crossfitting everyday, it's unnecessary and can be harmful. 10 percent of fat is enough? Show me one evolutionary model that proves that to be the case. Show me one hunter gatherer society that consumes ten percent of fat. Also, pointing out someone who is a bit overweight and saying: look, he's fat, don't take advice from him, is a bad argument. How fat would he be if you put him on a high carb diet? There is evidence to link high carb intake to cancer, alzheimers, diabetes, heart disease, and weight gain. Grant it, the carbs you seem to be eating are healthier than bread, legumes, and processed junk, but consuming over 150 grams a day will most likely lead to weight gain.

Hi all, first time poster here. I apologize if this has been brought up before (as I'm sure it has), but curious if anyone has any answer to this. To begin things, I'm a strong atheist that rejects any sort of diety. I've done some layman researching on the topic of the Big Bang, and from what I can understand, Einstein's Theory of Relativity (which holds up great after the Big Bang) breaks down at the moment before the Bang happened. I'm paraphrasing here, but from what I gathered from Hawking, they do not understand how the universe began before the Bang and truly aren't looking into that much (admittedly, could be wrong). So my question is, if science cannot describe as of now the beginnings of our universe, is it possible that another species created it? I'm not stating an all knowing, benevolent, no formed being, but a species that has moved on, etc. It actually sounds almost silly writing it out, but I can't logically see how this couldn't be possible given my current (read: limited) knowledge on the state of science. Thanks for an help in clarifying.