<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> i to think carbs arent a major factor in bulking up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is a lot of misinformatin out there. I am not sure if most people even realize why they are villanizing carbs. There is no question in my mind that most of the results of low carbohydrate diets is due mainly to the severe caloric restriction and NOT any sort of ketogenic reaction.
"Getting a high percentage of your calories from carbohydrate doesn't make you fat, because weight depends only on how many calories you take in relative to how many you burn off.
Paying attention to calories is critical for weight control. When people are encouraged to eat more carbohydrate and less fat, some get the wrong message. They think they can eat as much high-carbohydrate food as they want, as long as the food is fat-free. Consequently, they eat too many low-fat sweets and extra-large portions of starches. As a result, they can't lose weight and may feel that carbohydrates have "betrayed" them.
Cutting back on dietary fat does reduce total calories more than cutting back on carbohydrate, because fat supplies more than twice the calories by weight. In addition, fat is more likely to be stored as body fat than is carbohydrate. However, a person who cuts back on fat calories but adds them back in the form of carbohydrate calories is not going to lose weight. It's a simple matter of energy balance that holds true for people whether they're active or not "
"You'll lose weight on these diets because of the severe caloric restriction, not because of what is supposedly happening to insulin levels. You'll eventually lose something else, too: your performance and well-being. You need to eat enough calories and carbohydrate to maintain your muscle stores of glycogen--the favored fuel for exercise. Following a low-calorie, low-carbohydrate diet will only put you into a twilight zone of near starvation."
Exactly why this is good for short term dieting. Long term low carb dieting will deplete stores of glycogen and your body will catabolic and begin eating muscles and organs for glycogen.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Homo sapiens as a species is not adapted to a carbohydrate diet. This point has been made here before by better men than me, I'm just repeating someone else's ideas but, yeah, fact is that H. sapiens did not eat much in the way of carbs until about 10,000 year ago - no time at all, in evolutionary terms - and the onset of grain agriculture is pretty contemporaneous with increases in obesity rates, various metabolic diseases, etc..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As far as the theory of ancient humans being unsuited for carbohydrate diets. That makes me laugh! First, Look at the physiology of the human mouth. You will see teeth for tearing AND grinding. Guess what the grinding teeth are for? PLANTS, IE Carbo's. You also find a multi directional jaw made for just that purpose. Fact is, humans have consumed both carbohydrate sources and meat sources since at least homo erectus. Yes, agrarian societies have only been around for 10.000 years or so, but that only means that that was how long since humans have been farming. That does NOT mean that was when Humans first started consuming plants. In times of winter, the earliest humans may have had to rely more on meat, but that was only because they had too. Winter only lasts a few months.
As far as onset of diseases, are you kidding me? Homo Sapiens' average life span was in the 20-30 years range.The Life span of humans has increased exponentially due mainly to NUTRITION. Humans have also grown taller over the last century. A spurt in growth like that can only be attributed to nutritional factors.
We are talking about carbohydrates in the context of bodybuilding anyway, so if some eskimo can survive on seals and whale blubber that doesn't mean much to me. I don't think that the eskimo is concerned about how much he can squat.
[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Deeds...Not Words.
[This message was edited by JGUNS on 10-24-2001 at 08:37 PM.]