Is it true that grains, even whole, are bad for you?

Why is there so much speculation with nutrition?

Because people need an excuse for why they're fat.

except that a low protein diet will fuck your shit up real bad real fast

Low anything diet is generally a bad idea.

Because the diet industry folks have bills.

Because people want to believe that there are easy choices that can be made which will make one healthy. Same reason people believe in homeopathy and healing crystals and vaccines causing autism.

Scandinavians eat grains galore and are one of the most healthy populations, if not the healthiest. Also the tallest.

Because its a subject that is full of "get healthy" quick schemes.

People still look at health with intense superstition as well, which only adds to the confusion.

Now why would they be bad for you? What is wrong with people nowadays

>You can thank the FREE MARKET for the fear of gluten
FTFY

Big business creates and profits from a national hypochondria on this issue.

This. People tend to think about health in a strangely binary fashion, which leads them to this weird idea that a single variable in an equation with innumerable factors is solely responsible for their problems.

In reality, things like diet are extremely nuanced. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all perfect diet/lifestyle/etc, which becomes obvious just by taking genetics and gut microbiomes into account. Unfortunately this doesn't editorialize well and the average person can't consume and internalize it easily, so instead oversimplistic goofiness abounds.

No. We're mutants who can actually eat that shit. Just like we can drink milk.

Someone met someone with celiac disease and spread the word or some famous faggot got celiac disease or met some fag with celiac disease.

/thread

"Nutritionist " is not a regulated term. You literally need no formal education to tell people shit.

Cause we only started eating them relatively recently in human history

And they're terrible for dental health, native populations without agriculture who got introduced to grains only had bad dental health after the introduction

That doesn't mean they're bad for the rest of your body but I personally believe they are the root cause of a lot of bowel problems, though I have no proof of this

They say grains are bad because of gluten, phytic acid, lechtins, and carbohydrates. All 4 of those points are dumb and ignorant. Grains certainly aren't as nutritious as most people think, however. You can have a perfectly healthy diet without them.

so the onset of pandemic obesity is due to a sudden and significant rise in the consumption of grains since the mid 70’s?

Or did something else change back then? Say, maybe the introduction of the flawed dogma of “eating fat makes you fat” and the subsequent mass introduction of sugars (HFCS anyone?) in our diet?

...
user for gods sake just eat what you need.

The research is shit.

the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37918/title/Opinion--A-Wolf-in-Sheep-s-Clothing/

>The entire field is based on a small palette of simple academic errors

>Bad science_com

>6*int_0^1 t*dt + 2013
>not counting your calories with set % for protein/fat/carbs or using IIFYM

The real truth is. Aside from nasty chemicals and poisonous fruit, nobody really knows what is good or bad for you. The best you can do is eat things that have gone through as little processing as possible. If it came out of the ground exactly as you are eating it, its likely good for you. We dont know enough about the body, and theres no good way to test a foods healthiness because someone would have to eat just that food for many years to produce any valid results. Even then there are to many variables. You can find a diet that says just about any type of food is bad for you. They are all wrong. Just eat a variety of as natural as possible foods (ie what you evolved to eat) and remember everything in moderation.

I want to fucking murder you.

Can I watch?

Why are the Japanese so rarely fat?

soylent green is the ideal option

deal wit it

Keto????????

It's their superior Nordic genes

Why, because he's telling the truth? No one truly knows what is and isn't healthy for you. Health science is just a way to influence policy and attack corporations for not selling """"healthy"""" products.

lifespan and health in general is a poor endpoint for nutrition in general when the biggest determinant of lifespan is how long your parents lived. the only useful diet studies are randomized crossover trials with serum measurement endpoints like cholesterol.

MUH CARBS IS BAD 4U DIET
MUH MOOD SWINGS AND LETHARGY
MUH SKINNYFAT BODY

No.

/thread

If you have a condition called celiac disease, that means your body is basically allergic to gluten and you can have serious health problems if it ever comes near your body. It's similar to how people are allergic to peanuts, or shellfish.

If you do not have the diagnosis of celiac disease there is literally no reason not to eat gluten. It became a fad diet and nobody really knows why.

[citation needed]

It's also the superior grains.
>rye

only if you forget to activate the grains before you eat them

yes, so is oxygen

but is right tho...

a ketogenic diet isn't a good idea for long term health
also, how many people do you know where keto has worked for them?

>Betteridge's law at work

problem with keto is not enough cultured veg and/or activated almonds

I'm reading a lot of hostility and irritability in these posts, its probably the gluten you've been eating

problem with carbs are simple sugars. americans associate carbs with obesity because for them carbs mean corn syrup.
The best diet is the mediterranean diet and it's 60% carbs

Wtf? You statist retards will blame "big business" for anything. Newsflash, businesses want to appeal to consumer tastes and interests, and although they might be able to influence ir though marketing strategies, ultimately few people are going to buy a product that has no value.

are you implying that the only difference in diet is the amount of bread/grains?

From what I understand, digestion of wheat produces a shit-ton of free radicals. There's also this whole wheat-belly thing.

What about people who have eaten grains for centuries? Surely their stomachs would have developed by now to digest grains.

1% of the population has celiac disease and legitimately should consume gluten-free foods. At the same time, it's easy to con people like you into believing in non-celiac gluten sensitivity.

Bump for question.

gluten rage detected

no, whole grains increase longetivity.

Only when they replace refined grains. No grains is still best. Grains cause leaky gut

We have.

The real problem is portion control. You'll note that most popular American diets will cut entire categories of food instead of regulating the actually amount of food consumed. If Americlaps can't gorge tons of a particular type of food, they refuse to have it at all, or want some magic elixir to allow them to guzzle anyway. Remember the old 90s jokes of fat women ordering huge amounts of food, but offsetting it by getting a Diet Coke? Its like that.

Almost all dietary advice is complete bullshit and unsupported by scientific evidence. Especially diets that cut out a whole category of food. Paleo, no carbs, no fat, no milk, only meat, only bread, only fruit, only raw; whatever they think of to sell their next book.

IT. IS. ALL. CRAP.

The only dietary advice that is (somewhat) supported by science is this:
>Eat varied with lots of greens
>Eat in moderation and get plenty of exercise
>Make fast food an exception

Long term research is actually a huge problem.
Since you will live for 70-90 years, nutrition research is hard.
Looking for gains in weeks is one thing.
Shit ability to transform Sunlight into D4 due poor buildup of the substance chain it uses to build that substance, is another, especially when most substances have storages of weeks and years.
I.E B12? 3 fucking years.
Iron? Months, before signs of fatigue shows up.
Iodine? Deficient shows negative signs, but nothing life threatening or obvious.
C? One of the few cases where its side effects of no C showing up, is childbirth.

Then there is legacy probles: Most historical diets only have had testing grounds for lifespans of 30-70 years of actual aging.
Another is that a lot of modern food has barely existed for 100 years. I.E Degermed standard white flour. So long the core quality of milled flour is good enough, it will take 30-40 years before minor problems do show up.

For the moment part, I've now idea what you said.

*most

*no

I'm going to bed so I won't be able to reply, sry

Bread is carbs, no matter what grain or anything else. Carbohydrates like these are ~4 calories per gram. The average person, according to the FDA at least, requires about 2000 calories a day, but no one really bothers to focus on what they're eating or if they're burning enough calories through exercise to maintain a good digestive metabolism. Those that do are healthy if they are doing it right.

Humans are not made to eat constantly. We are evolutionarily designed to go hungry for days at a time, but like our canine friends when we have food readily available it is hard to resist the temptation to stuff our faces because the most basic parts of our identity is saying that we don't know when the next meal is coming - even if we do. So we eat. What are chips? Carbs, with fat too, which is 9 cal per gram. Bagel? You know the drill.

Carbs, when not utilized quickly, are stored in the form of glycogen. When your glycogen stores are full - and they refill within hours of eating - excess carbohydrates start being denied, and are told by your cells DNA to convert info long polysaccharides that soon become fats molecules, and then you have a beer gut and heart problems cuz you didn't fucking figure out how your body works.

Bread is not bad. It is simply what it is, and most people have too much of it.

Keto worked for me.

is there any good resources for the "basis" of autophagy? like an introduction to principles or how its applied to "fitness"

>and autophagy.
Yeah you'd know about it, phaggot.

GUYS GUYS
HEAR ME OUT
GUYS
WHAT
IF
ONE OF THE BASIC
NUTRIENTS
IS
TOXIC
BECAUSE I WAS BORN PUSSY THAT CANT EAT ANYTHING CONTAINING GLUTEN
GENIUS

>gluten
>'basic nutrient'

It's a collection of proteins, so yes, gluten is nutritious. Protein is available from more, and better digestible sources. Proteins would be the nutrients of course.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricin
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin
Just to name a few
protein != nutritious

El Bumpo

Aside from , "nutritious" =/= "basic nutrient".

No. It's just Atkins 2.0.

lol ketosis is an emergency state where the body literally does it's best to keep you from dying so the brain could get enough glucose so you could type in your idiotic opinion and post it on this malay rape survival discussion mail group

>Entire groups of natives has entered permanent ketosis
>Where they also eat weird things like whale skin to avoid malnutrition
>Its a emergency thing guyz!

Diet.

When I worked in Japan my weight plummeted. Rice, soya, fish, green tea and little sugar does that for you.

Okinawa is well known for extremely long life expectancy and there the norm is to eat until you are 80 percent sated.

hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/

TL;DR
To much of anything is bad, simple carbs are shit
complex are less shit

Get fucked breadfags
Need to bulk? Complex carbs as much as you feel you need.
Need to cut? Go keto, feel like shit for 2 days, then ascend to super saiyan 2 as the water and fat drip off you like spit roasted pork

>dietary advice is complete bullshit
>Heres some dietary advice

kek
Are you an elementary school teacher?

More like
Need to bulk? Eat more.
Need to cut? Eat less.

Really, what's so hard about that? Why do idiots always try to look for a miracle solution?

>Using 'calories' when meaning kcal
Opinion discarded.

kek
Yeah, completely disregard the benefits ketosis and the relationship of blood sugar levels/insulin and fat storage. Thats the way to go.

Infact just dont eat until you reach your goal weight.

Genetics and diet.

This, genetics more than you think
Also fish
Also also for the most part they dont subscribe to the gluttonous nature of the west

Also also also the fat ones never leave the fucking house

>muh fad diet

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/

>The weight and body mass index of the patients decreased significantly (P

>people on a deficit lost weight
no shit

They wernt on a deficit dip shit
Learn to read

It should be noted that the concept that fat can be eaten ad libitum and still induce weight loss in obese subjects is not a recent one (13–33). Ketosis occurs as a result of the change in the body’s fuel from carbohydrate to fat. Incomplete oxidation of fatty acids by the liver results in the accumulation of ketone bodies in the body. A ketogenic diet maintains the body in a state of ketosis, which is characterized by an elevation of D-b-hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate.

Also

>Different methods for reducing weight using reduced calorie and fat intake combined with exercise have failed to show sustained long-term effects (7–9). Recent studies from various laboratories (10,11), including our own (12), have shown that a high fat diet rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids (ketogenic diet) is quite effective in reducing body weight and the risk factors for various chronic diseases.

>They wernt on a deficit dip shit
Of course they were. Nothing of what you quoted said that they were eating at or above maintenance.

Also regarding >weight and body mass index
Are connected; assuming they were all fully grown adults. And a diet that helps you lose weight is nothing special.

But most (obese) people do not need [math]a[/math] diet, they need to [math]change \, their[/math] diet.
What good is losing weight if the way you lost it is not sustainable? Once you're off the diet you'll gain back the weight because you'll eat just like before.

You know exactly what he meant you pedantic faggot.

Yes, my post literally states that I knew they meant kilo calories.

>Of course they were
Nothing in the study or your post indicates this

>And a diet that helps you lose weight is nothing special
Forgive me, I thought that was the point of OPs post. To find out if its better to cut carbs or not.

>But most (obese) people do not need a diet, they need to changetheir diet.
What good is losing weight if the way you lost it is not sustainable?
The fuck are you talking about?
How is this not sustainable? your not "starving yourself" or eating at a deficit. This diet has an astonishing amount of freedom. You can litter ally eat fuck tons of fat and still loose weight. If you cant avoid carbs your a hopeless shit anyway.

>Once you're off the diet you'll gain back the weight because you'll eat just like before.
No you idiot, the weight doesnt yoyo because YOU ARNT STARVING YOURSELF

If youre a food junkie in the first place then self control is your issue.

All the more reason you're being a pedantic faggot. That was my point.

You added absolutely nothing, positive or negative, to the discussion. Only posting to assert that your brilliant mind is able to distinguish that kcal and the common term "calorie" are one and the same, making it seem as though this was something that needed to be pointed out, just so you could have an excuse to insert your little shitdick into the conversation.

I hope you're proud of yourself, you fucking retard.

I was correcting their mistake. Also I said I do not care about the opinion of someone who makes simple mistakes like that.

Scientific words are well defined. Using slang and ambiguous words in a science discussion can lead to confusion and is discouraged. Many people do not even know that most "calories" are actually a thousand calories.