well, rice isnt the only form of carbs

south-east asians ancestors had a predominate rice diet..but now with all the high sugar content foods these ethnic groups just simply cant process them as well as the Westerners = higher prevelance. The actual rice diet doesnt dictate diabetes..it's the overabundance of monosacchardies that get broken down to glucose way faster than the starch of grain products.

the deception is in the lack of specifics. instead of saying red meat can cause cancer, give us the facts. red meat has been linked to X amount of cancer cases in the united states for 2008, for example. if you can't positively link the cause to the effect, then in my opinion, the claim should be disregarded. also, the hormones given to cattle would be the most likely cause of cancer and not the beef itself. again, lack of specifics.

If I could, I would definitely only purchase grass fed beef. You guys probably can in Canada (but even then it's probably expensive as hell).

Just like they did to the human diet, farmers fucked with cows diets as well, and started feeding them leftover corn and grains.

oh it's not?

I was actually responding to the combination of your posts. Especially where you said you saw one report on a news program, and it changed your lifestyle completely.

http://files.turbosquid.com/Preview/...562fdLarge.jpg>http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1_RCgCn5LX...ontosaurus.jpg

NUFF SAID!

seriously? we've evolved to the top of the food chain, you better be eating everything that moves... and doesn't move, or you can consider yourself a lower class of human being.

The problem with your argument is that the general public does not have the knowledge to go into those "facts". I highly doubt the general public will know much about how hormones work or even how cancer works. They probably know just what is on the surface like "Hormones help you grow" and "Cancer is bad!" without knowing the mechanisms behind them at all.

And if you knew anything about science and research, you would know that there is never a link from cause to effect. There is only correlation and correlation does not mean causation. In the view of science, we only have the best guess until proven otherwise. During testing, we can only reject the null hypothesis rather than accepting the alternative hypothesis (not the same thing).

So if you wanted specifics, it would be like talking about quantum physics to Stephen Hawking. You wouldn't have a clue in the world what it meant and it would only be what he told you he was saying. He would be giving you a whole pile of shit but you would still take it as "fact" because he told you it was and you have no idea what it is. Same thing with the "specifics" and "facts" behind the research.

I dont think sugar or carbs is the only problem. Its taking in too many calories. I heard ppl in cuba or something get most of their energy from sugar and they dont have a problem with diabetes. Even consuming a lot of sugar though, they dont get much calories in each day.

I remember my prof told the class that burned fat/oil from meats like a grilled steak become carcinogenic. But honestly, everything can be found to be carcinogenic. For example nitrate used to cure bacon is carcinogenic but its not a problem in small amounts.

^ I won't even comment on that. I'll just ignore your post.

is that really what you meant to say???

Are you refering to my post? Care to explain what is wrong with it.

:(

There is never a link from cause to effect in the sense that correlation does not mean causation. I may have misconstrued the sentence.

But I hope everything else is sound. I also didn't mean to make it sound like I was calling you out. I wasn't. Now that I reread it, it does sound I'm aiming for you. This was not what I intended.

So basically, don't overcook your fucking meat!

Interesting considering amylase is present in saliva and wheat was one of the first plants to be domesticated.

What do you believe should be the composition of an average persons caloric intake in terms of carbs, protein, and fat?

Berries and vegetebales have been in our diets forever, of course we can digest them :lol. Grains and starches have not. Is that really that difficult to comprehend?

I am not saying "don't eat carbs". I am saying "choose your carbs wisely, and don't eat very much of them". In other words, your carbs should be coming from from fruits and vegetables. That's it. Not Coca Cola, not Cocoa Puffs, not Bread, White Rice. Those things will do nothing for you other than give you a shitload of useless calories to burn off quickly, and a huge insulin spike that will build your resistance to the hormone, make you fat, and make you diabetic. Fruits and veggies will give you good long-lasting energy, no huge spike, and are loaded with nutrients to keep you healthy.

I can't believe people are arguing against this.. Are you really that fucking stupid? Really? Or is everyone just playing a huge cruel joke on me? Jesus fucking christ! :lol

Amylase present in the saliva in addition to being excreted by the pancreas into the small intestines suggest we've evolved to maximize the amount of energy extracted from starch. Calories from fruits are mostly simple sugars and vegetables don't contain that many calories.

Grains such as rice and wheat have been cultivated as a staple of the human diet for over 10,000 years (this number is larger than a few hundred) and it's probably the case that before neolithic times humans gathered wild specimens for food.

Those grain based foods you mentioned are excellent examples of foods one should limit, Would you say the same for wheat bran? Whole wheat pasta? Brown rice? Rolled oats?

So again, I ask what you believe the make up should be. To me, it looks like you're recommending a majority of your calories come from protein and fat. I am not arguing that that would be wrong. In the Inuit diet, 75% of their calories come from fat.

I'll make my position clear. I only would say that your position that more than 2-3 servings of grains is consider too much is wrong. However, I make no suggestion as to what is optimal.

The majority of the diet should come from naturally grown meat, veggies, fruit, and nuts, with some things like oats and tubers. Sorry I can't give you a percentage.

And yeah, we have been cultivating grains for about 10,000 years. Or 0.5% of our history. Good point. The video I posted elsewhere puts it into good perspective - if you were to put our entire history into one calendar year, we started farming yesterday. And we started consuming shitty oil products a few minutes ago. Sure sounds like we were made to eat this way all along!

If you disagree that 2-3 servings of grains is enough, even though you can get plenty of calories from veggies (not all veggies are pure fiber), fruits (not all fruits are pure sugar) and nuts, then are you really telling me you think that 7-8 servings is right? 7 or 8 bowls of oatmeal, whole wheat pasta, brown rice, and rolled oats is a fuck of a lot of quick-burning calories, and I can't imagine anyone but elite athletes needing to eat that much. Yet, that's what they tell us the average person with average fitness and average activity level should be eating.

Surely my goals differ from others, but that anyone actually thinks they should be ingesting that much starch and sugar (whether low GI or not) boggles my mind.

And add to that, they recommend using corn oil, soybean oil, and margarine. Go squeeze a peanut or an olive. What do you get? Oil. You can even taste it when you chew them. Now go squeeze some corn or a soybean... How much oil do you get out of those?

So basically, I think people continue to miss the point I am trying to make with my posts. I guess I should take some of the blame for that.. Not everyone out there is stupid, so I must be doing something wrong. Hopefully these followups will not go unnoticed by people who may have disagreed with me in the first place.

Just to add a little info regarding cause and effect. In order for cause and effect to be establish there are 3 things that need to be established.

1. One effect happened before the other
2. One effect has a relationship with the other effect.
3. Lastly, you need to establish that there are not other possible explanations.

That's why it's super duper rare to find any research that shows cause and effect. As CRS pointed out research generally establishes correlations.

i dont wanna get cancer you know?

really? but chinese/ asian people almost relies on rice. So dont eat rice from now on? or dont eat too much rice? since u mentioned carbs are pretty useless?

evryting gives u cancer

... oh what? -.-