People still unironically eat carbohydrates

I eat wild fruit like berries from that I forage myself in the forest all summer. Hint: they are wild, not farmed, and contain simple sugars.

No you are, you are very dumb

anabolicmen.com/carbohydrates-testosterone/

I bet you wont even go through the links here that are tied to studies.

The low carb = low test thing is a truth.

I dare you to prove me otherwise with legit sources you mongoloid.

>people still don't realize that copious amounts of meat and deep green vegetables is literally all we need as human animals

Vegetables are carbohydrates you fucking retard. It's great that you started lifting last month and all but you should try to read more before you make yourself look like a moron.

>cheap, intense fuel that gets converted to fat if you don't use it incredibly quickly

Yeah, literally excess carbs will literally get literally converted to literal fat just like literally every other literal macronutrient

>people still deny that carbohydrates and simple sugars are (evolutionarily) a brand new concept for the human body and do not belong in our bodies
>Simple sugars do not belong in our bodies
Lol, you realise the D in DNA stands for deoxyribose, which is a monosaccharide, or "simple sugar".

Nobody is stupid enough to legitimately think you should cut out carbs for life, right?

user, sugars truly do not really need to be in our body though. Carbs are enough. Those carbs get converted into sugar anyhow down the line.

But you can completely live without sugars though. There is no decrease in test without sugars as far as I know.

Though I have to admit, sugars can give you energy quickly. So perhaps some can use them strategically for sprinting or whatever.

But sugars are still the real devil.

this as well

ergo-log.com/live-12-percent-longer-on-a-low-glycaemic-diet.html

Leaving aside that anyone with the slightest knowledge of glycolysis or physiology in general knows that keto is idiotic, why do you retards defend it with this silly "paleo" argument? Even supposing your view of human evolution were right (a huge, unwarranted assumption), what makes you want to model your diet and lifestyle around a population with a life expectancy of

CARBS

ARE

SUGARS

the philosophy of paleo is not entirely untrue.

There are many small bits that say that some parts of us are extremely slow to evolve. That a hundred, even a thousand years as we have lived now is not enough for these ancient systems of flesh to adapt.

From carcinogenics, to pm 2.5 pollution, sugar water, even our sedentary lifestyle.

There are many of these things that lag behind. Or are just incompatible with many modern things.

The trick is figuring out which of these are like that.

but just of the low glygemic index, right?

Sugars being the highest, simple carbs come after that and as last are the complex carbs?

>people still think carbs do ANYTHING besides bloat you and make you fat quick

I too enjoy having zero blood sugar and being unable to do anything more intense than shitpost all day.

Go do some heavy squats while on keto and tell me how that goes, after you regain consciousness.

>Leaving aside that anyone with the slightest knowledge of glycolysis or physiology in general knows that keto is idiotic, why do you retards defend it with this silly "paleo" argument?

Keto isn't paleo though.

keto kinda evolved from the sentiment of paleo people who thought that in the past we used to only mostly eat meat. Low carb, went to even lower carb.

If you're going to go to the trouble of looking at how things interact with our present day biology, why bring up primitive humans at all? Whatever investigation you do to "figure out which things are like that" can replace

>muh distant ancestors

as an explanation entirely. For example, if high intake of simple sugars tends to interact negatively with our endocrine systems and cause diabetes, why not leave it at that? Tacking something on the end about cavemen not drinking pepsi adds nothing to the strength of that explanation. For every claim paleotards make, there is either

1. An explanation rooted in the physiology of modern humans, or
2. >fucking nothing

If you believe the claims in category 1 and not category 2, why bother with the paleo thing at all? Why deal with smoke and mirror buzzwords if biology and physiology are doing all the heavy lifting in your causal explanation anyway?

I personally get the impression that like OP, most paleo retards are not rejecting claims in category 2, and that's the problem.

complex carbohydrates are many sugars

Well that's fucking retarded. Meat is hard to catch.

>If you're going to go to the trouble of looking at how things interact with our present day biology, why bring up primitive humans at all? Whatever investigation you do to "figure out which things are like that" can replace

What part of "it takes time for the human to evolve and adapt" do you not understand?

primitive humans
>lived a really long ass time the same way (potentially thousands of years)

modern humans
>literally just a 100 years or so like this

Human biology, DNA cannot adapt so fast, we wont be able to grow wings in 100 years. That foot of yours wont drastically change in 100 years to accommodate new feet apparatus.

and there are a thousand different things like that who just need more time to evolve.

Human arrogance is not understanding their own biology and just throwing themselves off a cliff to see what works and what does not (hello asbestos)

shit, I have been living a lie. I have battled the sugars for so long, and the entire time, sugars were still nearly everything.

Le upBoatz for u my good sir

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. If primitive humans and modern humans have essentially identical biology (the result of slow evolution), why bring up the primitives at all?

No that is wrong, we are not the same like them.

There are changes, subtle ones from us to them.

Life is more complicated than you understand really.

Evolution is an ongoing process. Some things go extremely fast (like the 52% of us that are made out of bacteria), others go kinda slow (like our legs)

However, total knowledge of our internal systems, and how they interact with the world is limited, as science funding, research is tied to money, and it can often be flawed.

That is why people like to theorize to be on the safe side. Some people dont want to inhale a possible unknown asbestos. Or become dumber thanks to leaded gasoline.

>carbohydrates [...] are a brand new concept for the human body and do not belong in our bodies

Nigger you're retarded

here is a nice example

io9.gizmodo.com/how-throwing-evolved-into-humanitys-greatest-weapon-626239143

even between the races we kinda evolved differently.

That user should really read more news articles.

Right, hence "essentially." So we have most things in common, and a few that aren't. How do we know the difference? We look at the biology. Since you can't know whether things are the same or not without actually doing experiments and checking, why not just explain things in empirical terms? We don't need to talk about primitive humans with respect to things like diet, because the process by which we explain THAT explanation is itself a superior explanation.

>no other animal is retarded enough to rationalize running forever (prey/predator)
except for the human being

The old type of man had more time to settle into his biology. Therefore he is good.

The new man does not have enough time to settle into his biology, therefore he makes more mistakes.

Dont mistake this for a simple nature fallacy user. The rate at which DNA changes was more favorably aligned with the old type of man. That is why we sometimes take inspiration from him for that simple fact.

>So we have most things in common
You dont know which, and/or/if. Hense in the absence of evidence, we revert to a more stable lifestyle as it is the only way to maximize our odds for better success in judging how to live.

That is the whole philosophy behind paleo. I am not really sure what you are rambling on about though.

Well, no. SUGAR is bad, because it is literally addictive. While sugar is a type of carbohydrate, not all carbohydrates are bad.

Oh I get it now, your problem is that you dont realize that we need to fill the gap, with action.

We paleo tards realize more intricacies of life and how they may play out to be. We know more variables. While you are not aware of them yet.

Simply put, we encountered more bad things, and our pattern recognition told us "if there are bad things here, then perhaps there are bad things there"

Our drive towards paleo is simply a drive towards eliminating possible black swan events.

We cant just wait for science and research to catch up for everything. As we said, science is limited, and thus we must decide for ourselves with the best evidence that we have. And that is perhaps paleo lore.

things like this is what paleo tards are afraid off

bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615

black swan events (google this term)

I'm about done rambling, I'm sorry. I'm complaining about a metatheoretical issue that doesn't concern you because you don't have a scientific or academic background, and would rather talk past and lecture better educated strangers. I'm foolish for expecting any other level of discourse on Veeky Forums. I'll stop bothering you. Have a cozy pepe by way of apology.

>We cant just wait for science and research to catch up for everything.

>in 4 years
>we of the medical community have determined that the carbon cycle does not exist, and all previously known models of metabolism were 100% wrong
If you actually agree with this shit tier bait thread, you need to an hero asap

No I dont think you understand it really, or you are just not very eloquent in expressing yourself. Dont pretend that you are superior dude.

>bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615
thats a very rough correlation

Public programs increased in the 60-70
television played a bigger role (cultural influence?)

upcoming technology always creates new ways for crimes

to name a couple

It's a hard sale mate

SUGARS are not bad

there are only two types of digestible carb, sugar and starch

Its what literally drove to the ban of leaded gasoline though. It was the decision of a whole nation. A whole world actually. I believe that they even did follow up studies and determined it to be a neurotoxin thingy.

Now imagine the thoughts of the paleo tards. If they see thousands of these kinds of legislation's, of these theories floating around. Some of them get thrown down, some of them get confirmed, some of them get debunked even later, or they get expanded upon and modified.

A normal person would only find chaos in all of this. Thus he will try to turn to a time where there was less chaos, less complexity in life. To the paleo man...

I am not saying if its bad or good this philosophy, I am just explaining how these people think so that you may understand it as well.

>you because you don't have a scientific or academic background
Is this coming from the fucknut that is LITERALLY saying carbohydrates are bad for humans because science is wrong and says you need them?

You will never be proven correct, because your body is storing energy in the form of glucogen (a carbohydrate) as we fucking speak

>"Let us avoid anything that we are not adapted to right now"
>Evolution

Pick one.

This entire "If we didn't eat it 25k yrs ago, we shouldn't eat it now"-meme is getting so fucking stale.

Keto is great for rapid weight loss and subsequent rapid weight gain.

Keto is also great at killing your liver.

If you're in a weight loss competition you can win it with keto but it's not a realistic sustainable diet.

eliminating sugar on the other hand is.

Enjoy ypur stunted growth mr keto manlet

the problem however is that we dont entirely know what we ate 25k years ago. There is also some evidence that we did eat that a long time ago.

On the other end, our extended scientific lore as shown

tells us that we indeed are adapted for it, that its extremely important for us even.

So the paleo tards tried to go the right way with "let us avoid anything that we are not adapted to right now", but didnt know what the "right now" is.

If they did know, they would have eaten carbs.

That's retarded, no one on keto drinks petrol.

NOT AN ARGUMENT

NOT AN ARGUMENT AT ALL

Pure, white, and lethal? Sugar is the neo nazi of foods. Just look at how many blacks and pajeets die from the beetus.

>mfw
>4 years into keto
>grew two inches at age 32

Must be the hormones in meat.

similar thing can be said of milk, coincidence? I think not.

Congrats you're finally 5'6 ya fucking manlet retard

Lmao

4 years

Kys

>the problem however is that we dont entirely know what we ate 25k years ago

Yeah, I supposed this to be a given, due to this conversation being held over and over again. But to extend on that point: "Paleo" describes a period of several hundred thousand years. There are no recordings that go all the way back, what we have are some cave paintings and living sites of Sapiens, Cro-Magnon etc, which provide some evidence on what was going on food-wise, but most of it is a deduction based on human physiology and the flora & fauna of the period.
It's probably smarter to look back a hundred years and see what farmers cultivated back then, how their work routine, diet, health issues etc. looked like to deduce what could be healthy for us right now.

Yea perhaps, before the industrial revolution, before the complicated chaos started to arise. It probably would be a better data point than some obscure, hard to find evidence of 25k ago.

it might even calm down some of the more nuttier paleo tards. Though I have to admit, I was one of them. It is always easy to become to overzealotlike over certain things. Most humans have this autism.

Though I will never consume the sugary devil.

What you fags don't get is that for 99% of recorded history people mainly ate grains and fruit, meat was a rarity. Yes, even cavement didn't eat much meat because they would have to hunt it. Also throughout history most people were manlets, died at 40 from simple fevers and probably weren't 1/3rd as strong as modern people.

It's sugar that fucks your shit up, every diet where sugar is a staple(i'm looking at you america) people get fat as fatass. Eat your meat, your fish, your vegetables and nice good carbs like rice and oats.

Eskimos have an all meat diet and they don't look particularly good to me.

>what is muscle glycogen?

Some user argued that we used to consume sugar in the past

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sugar#Sugar_cultivation_in_the_New_World

but didnt became fat because of it. That sugar used to be a popular staple in food back then.

I am not entirely sure of this though.

(personally, I am mostly avoiding the sugar because of the HFCS thing, and because I felt actual noticeable effects from candida, also sugar is directly linked to Alzheimer increases) (I think that the more extreme versions of sugar are actually the the bad things, but a large amount of sugar, beyond a daily 20 grams for a healthy person is also a cause)

Still though, if you dont need immediate energy, I like to be on the safe side and not consume it. Sugar is tied to many variables that make people fat and there is no need to risk it if carbs are a less harmful version of it.

I'm keto as fuck. I only eat carbs ironically.

>all summer

He admitted it lads pack it up.

When i mention sugar i mean processed white sugar. People always craved sweet foods like honey and fruits, but those didn't fuck their shit up because they didn't consume a shitton of them. Sugar was known to europe from the times of the crusades , but it was extremely expensive.

Another variable that we may not have thought about is this perhaps

>because we are evolving, we can choose which food we could exploit most (and teach to our children what to eat)
>even though it will probably take thousands of years, we now have the choice to what we should consume, so that our future generations may benefit from it
>ancient man chose both meat and plants

Why do people always say carb deliver nutrition(protein) into muscle?

LITERALLY BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

Wtf I hate keto now

Yea that is perhaps why people have been getting fatter, the expensiveness of it perhaps correlated to the rarity of it in nature. Through economics.

But today nations like russia are fat as hell, even though they did not have the same HFCS trends as the US did.

They did however have cheap sweets.

So perhaps, if people dont want to be fat, they have to manually adjust their food cravings in the most extreme way possible. By completely abstaining from it.

That perhaps in the vain hope that whatever neuron parts in the brain are responsible for sugar cravings, die down, shrink (with the hope that they are at least malleable like that, because neurons, your consciousness, behavior is one of the few things that you can adapt yourself without DNA manipulation)

>berries

Anyways the sane approach is to adjust carbs based on activity level.

also overhyped, but potentially relevant link related

youtube.com/watch?v=jQr5PMSqkSk

(take it with a grain of salt, but it does have some truth to it, to what extent is unknown however. The video is basically half sponsored by a corp, so half a truth most likely)

It's purely based on an idealised recreation of primitive humans, so paleo=marketing: it's interesting that I find that the same kind of people who follow paleo also tend to gravitate towards crossfit.

Well what does the rest of the people want to call itself who follow this trend a bit?

>reasonable time for evolution and least risk attainment ology?

wtf i hate carbs now

>people still deny that carbohydrates and simple sugars are (evolutionarily) a brand new concept for the human body

Yeah man, our distant ancestors would never have eaten fruit (like most of our closest relatives among the primates do).

Yeah, refined sugars without fiber are relatively new to us. Living off of grains is likely far newer than eating meat and greens. The copious amounts of sugar people eat these days is something the body still has no real way of dealing with. But carbohydrates don't belong in our bodies? The fuck outta here.

Paleofags are almost as bad as vegans. Why don't you tell us about the benefits of Crossfit and vaping next?

*ketofags, not paleofags
Though they can be just as annoying

Is that barefoot runner flat-footed

keto is reddit tier shake my head famalams

it literally says so on the picture, the right side is the one without shoes.

I don't think you understood my question

oooh, shit you are right. Well I have no idea then.

Carbohydrates will be broken into glucose by salivary and pancreatic amylase, glucose can also come from the breakdown of amino acids.

If you've graduated highschool you should know that glucose is necessary for the start of cellular metabolism (Glycolysis) which then feeds the rest of cellular metabolism. Without glucose, you're dead.

Since glucose can come from either the breakdown of proteins or carbs, you should have enough carb intake so that your body doesn't start cannibalizing your muscles for sugar.

If your carb intake is sufficiently high, or if your blood glucose levels are sufficiently high (they're basically the same thing) your body starts dumping sugar as glycogen in the liver. Once glycogen stores are sufficiently high, sugars start to be converted into fat.

In other words, eat a balanced diet and don't overeat and you should be fine. What a novel and surprising idea.

The average person doesn't do enough physical activity to warrant the amount of carbs that the average person consumes a day.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't eat them at all.

The average sedentary person who doesn't think too much honestly doesn't need as much as they think.

>implying humans are naturally meet eaters

>Dumas

Alexander?

Guarantee you that you're a fat fuck who just started trying to lose weight with keto.

Keto is literally only useful for losing weight .

Stupid weeb kys

if youve had trouble leaning into a sixpack, the meat/greens diet will melt that abfat off

can you make gains on a paleo style diet tho? no one truly huge is off carbs are they

...

>implying vegetarianism is a better alternative to eating meat

>who doesn't think too much
>think too much
if this isn't bait kys

>no one truly huge is off carbs are they
True, but most of your macro intake doesn't go to building tissue. The majority of it is converted to energy.

Yeah, you need plenty of protein to build a lot of muscle. But you can still have plenty of carbs and be big/ripped, so long as you're not consuming so many calories that you're storing it as fat, and you're getting enough protein.

this ones better

>implying vegetarianism is a better alternative to eating meat

Meh, you can easily hit all your macros and get all your micronutrients from a vegetarian diet. It just isn't as common, since most people aren't veggie, and many vegetarians/vegans are in it for the feels instead of the gains.

It's less complicated to just eat meat, but to each their own, as long as they are taking care of themselves.

kys

Well, you've thoroughly disproven my point and are clearly not some wannabe-Chad level idiot.

I take it all back.

>hey're literally cheap, intense fuel that gets converted to fat if you don't use it incredibly quickly

It's hard to turn carbs into body fat, especially compared to dietary fat.

It doesn't even make sense that this is peoples' explanation of "carbs make you fat." It gets stored as fat if you don't use it quickly? Well what if you're still under the amount of calories your body requires for maintenance that day? If you're in a caloric surplus, all macros will lead to fat gain

>Meh, you can easily hit all your macros and get all your micronutrients from a vegetarian diet.
Easy as shit when you're taking 4 supplements a day.

Any diet that restricts entire food groups is stupid.
The only moderately justifiable diet that excludes livestock is pescatarian.

>Any diet that restricts entire food groups is stupid.

Why?

What do you think "deep green vegetables" are? Fat? Protein? No, mostly carbs.

I agree that simple sugars are probably best avoided, at least in large quantities, but you're gonna be eating some fucking carbohydrates.