The Food Pyramid that you're taught in schools...

[MrEgo]

Is this model still legit anymore?

A co-worker of mine is really into Herbalife. Herbalife really stresses that wheat, hops, barley, and stuff like that isn't very beneficial for you.

Is there some merit to what Herbalife is saying?

 

[blackdogdeek]

Paleo diet has similar beliefs, namely that grains and legumes destroy the lining of your digestive tract and introduce substances into the bloodstream but I haven't read up in a while so this might not be completely accurate.

 

[MrEgo]

I also heard him saying something similar - that wheat products cause inflammation in your intestines.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Only for Coeliacs.

 

[Howard]

Paleo diet has similar beliefs, namely that grains and legumes destroy the lining of your digestive tract and introduce substances into the bloodstream but I haven't read up in a while so this might not be completely accurate.

Wha? Beans are awesome.

 

[Mike Gayner]

God dammit more being being sucked into the ridiculous gluten-free fad.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

For most people wheat isn't bad, but it's not important like the farming industry endorsed pyramid will tell you. That said the old pyramid isn't valid and has been replaced.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

God dammit more being being sucked into the ridiculous gluten-free fad.

All fads aside, grain products in general really ramp up inflammatory processes within the body. The issue with that is that chronic inflammation is linked with all sorts of conditions: autoimmune issues, diabetes, obesity, potential hypertension, joint disorders, etc. Honestly, the thought behind increased veggies, fewer grains and such is logical and beneficial - back by both related and non-related research.

 

[infoiltrator]

Corn Syrup and Corn Oil (and several others) are of far more significance, as is processing.
Diet effects are very individual, but sweets lead to more sweets is a given.
The Romans marched and fought on grain, and likely olives and olive oil.
I would have to look up the Assyrian, Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian and Greek.
The Chinese on rice and wheat, Japanese on rice and ?
Indians (Asian) too.
Africa wherever not nomadic.
I can think of no farming culture that did not exist primarily on grains.
Of Course too much is too much. Note corn was recently introduced to the world diet (as was the potato, but that seems to work for most peoples).
A young and fully energetic can and will eat highly without effects, you can burn more calories a day than you can consume.
The world we live in is very little like that today.
The worst part is people who could thrive on small portions and intermittent feasting are punished by the abundance of food, especially high calorie food.
Basically there are two entirely different forms of digestion going on between the active and sedentary. The digestion of the actives grab all the calories it can and passes anything difficult to make room for more.
EXCESSIVE Food laying in your gut without the stimulus of exercise is a far greater problem, Your body wants to keep it ALL till the calories are absorbed, yet volume makes the process slower, and encourages greater "digestive "juice" production.
That said..
If you know any fast food places offering carrot sticks or celery, vegetable soup instead of noodles, boiled potatoes or brown rice instead of sugared oil Fry's
Onions and peppers, plain boiled sweet potatoes..

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

All fads aside, grain products in general really ramp up inflammatory processes within the body.

Really?

 

[Mike Gayner]

All fads aside, grain products in general really ramp up inflammatory processes within the body. The issue with that is that chronic inflammation is linked with all sorts of conditions: autoimmune issues, diabetes, obesity, potential hypertension, joint disorders, etc. Honestly, the thought behind increased veggies, fewer grains and such is logical and beneficial - back by both related and non-related research.

LOL no.

 

[forlin]

I wonder why each new research descoveres something idfferent and often the opposite...

 

[Whisper]

I wonder why each new research descoveres something idfferent and often the opposite...

This is why you need to wait for new research findings, especially in an area as complex as nutrition, to be independently and repeatedly replicated. It's very, very easy (inadvertently due to poor knowledge of research methods and design, or on purpose for various reasons) to make a study say what you want it to say, especially when doing so is against the status quo and could gain you significant scientific attention.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

This is why you need to wait for new research findings, especially in an area as complex as nutrition, to be independently and repeatedly replicated. It's very, very easy (inadvertently due to poor knowledge of research methods and design, or on purpose for various reasons) to make a study say what you want it to say, especially when doing so is against the status quo and could gain you significant scientific attention.

Yup.

The reasons you see grains being so huge in ancient times is that was because of grains we got to these societies that were able to be supported by grain farming. Prior to the domestication of wheat and other grains, when people were hunting and gathering, humanity ate a diet of meat, veggies, and fruits. Very little to no grains/dairy/sweets. Once we started forming communities, the domestication of various plants and animals started to happen. Grains happened to be very good for allowing these communities to be sustained easily. Grain is more calorie dense than many fruits and veggies, and more importantly is easier to store. Fruits/veggies are good for ~3-5 days. Grain can last weeks and longer if properly stored.

Compare the diets of the East and West. Japan/Chinese diets use rice and noodles to provide calories. However, they are not as prevelent as in Western cultures. European cultures are all heavily focused on breads and meats. Eastern cultures are more focused on seafoods and veggies even today.

Unfortunately looking at diets like paleo or "caveman" diet doesn't usually take into account diversity, mutation, and evolution. That said, research I have seen suggests that cutting grains back from being the "base" like the food pyramid has is beneficial. Personally, veggies should be the base with fruits and lean meats (seafoods, chicken, other lean meats) not too far behind. Then closer to the top dairy and grains with sweets remaining where it currently is.

 

[wheresmybacon]

The food pyramid is great if you want to be fat. Carb heavy ftl.

 

[Deeko]

Its all a bunch of crap. The new diets, the old diets. Nutrition "science" is *constantly* at odds with itself. Why? Oh, I dunno, I guess because nutrionists and authors still need jobs.

Its really not worth it to concern *that* much over this kind of thing. Over time, I'm sure this "new" science will be "proven wrong" too.

Just put down the fork every now and then and you'll be fine....seriously.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I wonder why each new research descoveres something idfferent and often the opposite...

This is what I always hated about general science reporting. Journalists don't understand that no matter how eminent the scientist and how lauded the study, it's not individual studies by individuals or even whole teams that matter, it's the scientific consensus that is made from reproduced studies and studies built upon protocols generated by past studies. These validate and 'prove' the data and conclusions that earlier studies draw, and this is what scientists and doctors base their recommendations from.

Unfortunately looking at diets like paleo or "caveman" diet doesn't usually take into account diversity, mutation, and evolution. That said, research I have seen suggests that cutting grains back from being the "base" like the food pyramid has is beneficial. Personally, veggies should be the base with fruits and lean meats (seafoods, chicken, other lean meats) not too far behind. Then closer to the top dairy and grains with sweets remaining where it currently is.

Please, show me a systematic review or something. I want to see this.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Well, the effect of carbs turning into sugar and sugar causing you to store fat and/or have a sugar crash and how that affects your body is well documented.

I also keep track of how I personally feel after a meal. If I have a meal full of carbs that have a similar ratio to the food pyramid, I crash and feel crappy afterwards. If I have a meal full of meats, veggies, and fruits, I feel great afterwards. Either the same level of energy or even slightly up, no matter if I eat normally or stuff myself.

I'm doing some pretty lenient Paleo diet as well and I think I might be kinda weird though. People told me that for the first week or so of not having carbs I would feel really weak, drowsy, and crappy. I had none of these symptoms when switching to Paleo (actually felt a lot better, more energy, became more regular - before on a carb diet I was not regular and had hard stools), but this may be because I'm Chinese and I know how to cook lots of green leafy veggies. I'm sure I would feel like crap if I only ate salads for my veggie portion.

 

[Zargon]

Unfortunately looking at diets like paleo or "caveman" diet doesn't usually take into account diversity, mutation, and evolution. That said, research I have seen suggests that cutting grains back from being the "base" like the food pyramid has is beneficial. Personally, veggies should be the base with fruits and lean meats (seafoods, chicken, other lean meats) not too far behind. Then closer to the top dairy and grains with sweets remaining where it currently is.

thats great and all, but that diet makes my cholesterol #'s go way up.

I went to mostly red meats and veggies, cut down on fruits and grains and I might not die of heart disease now.

take some fish oil(I eats some fish but I hate most, or I would eat more of it) and a multivitmman daily.

I added the fishoil after I started to diet, after i got #'s checked. it helped out about as much as the diet change seemed to

the local BK no longer looks at me funny when I order burgers w/o buns now though D:

Well, the effect of carbs turning into sugar and sugar causing you to store fat and/or have a sugar crash and how that affects your body is well documented.

I also keep track of how I personally feel after a meal. If I have a meal full of carbs that have a similar ratio to the food pyramid, I crash and feel crappy afterwards. If I have a meal full of meats, veggies, and fruits, I feel great afterwards. Either the same level of energy or even slightly up, no matter if I eat normally or stuff myself.

I'm doing some pretty lenient Paleo diet as well and I think I might be kinda weird though. People told me that for the first week or so of not having carbs I would feel really weak, drowsy, and crappy. I had none of these symptoms when switching to Paleo (actually felt a lot better, more energy, became more regular - before on a carb diet I was not regular and had hard stools), but this may be because I'm Chinese and I know how to cook lots of green leafy veggies. I'm sure I would feel like crap if I only ate salads for my veggie portion.

wait till you have been low/no carb for about a month or two, then go eat some pizza or something and see how shitty you feel afterwords

 

[Todd33]

God dammit more being being sucked into the ridiculous gluten-free fad.

It's tuning into a religion. The science to back their "beliefs" is very weak.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Well, the effect of carbs turning into sugar and sugar causing you to store fat and/or have a sugar crash and how that affects your body is well documented.

Oh, really? Where does the glycogen come from, then?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Oh, really? Where does the glycogen come from, then?

The body creates glucose from proteins, fats, and carbohydrates, and that glucose gets turned into glycogen as another form of energy storage in addition to fat. Carbohydrates are the primary source of glucose.

With that said, most people do NOT get glycogen depleted, not by a long shot. The food pyramid with its heavy emphasis on carbs means we easily create all the glycogen we need, and all the excess gets turned into fat. In addition, all the refined carbs give us sugar spikes which make us crash and cause diabetes in the long run.

Regular everyday people (ie. not athletes or people who work out heavily) can make enough glycogen from just meats, veggies, and fruits with a little bit of carbs if need be. Athletes who CAN get glycogen depleted need to eat carbs before working out to avoid getting depleted.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

The body creates glucose from proteins, fats, and carbohydrates, and that glucose gets turned into glycogen as another form of energy storage in addition to fat. Carbohydrates are the primary source of glucose.

From proteins only as a last resort. Only when there is literally nothing else left to metabolize will the body start metabolizing protein. And even then it will not turn it into fat, or glycogen (not fat, because it makes no sense to turn protein into just another energy store when you're already lacking energy. And not glycogen, because...well, I'll cover it in the next couple of paragraphs). Under the circumstances of starvation or very extreme periods of prolonged exercise, which are the only circumstances where protein catabolism would be present in significant amounts, amino acid catabolic products would either feed straight into the Krebs Cycle or come out as AcCoA, which would probably then go straight into ketogenesis. There is no point in producing an energy store when you're starving.

As for fat...it takes 2 triglycerides to make a single glucose molecule, since the glycerol portion is the only bit of it that can do this. The rest, the 3 long hydrocarbon chains, get broken up into acetyl CoA units. And because the reaction catalyzed by the pyruvate dehydrogenase enzyme is irreversible, this means that through no known mechanism is it possible to get fatty acids to turn into pyruvate, which means that under no known mechanism is it possible for large-scale gluconeogenesis to occur with just fats:

The conversion of fatty acids into carbohydrate is not possible because the pyruvate dehydrogenase reaction is not reversible. This fact prevents the direct conversion of acetyl CoA, the sole catabolic product of even-numbered-carbon fatty acids, into pyruvate for gluconeogenesis. In addition, gluconeogenesis from acetyl CoA as a TCA cycle intermediate cannot occur, because for every two carbons in the form of acetyl CoA entering the cycle, two carbons are lost by decarboxylation in early reactions of the TCA cycle...Therefore, there can be no net conversion of acetyl CoA to pyruvate or to the gluconeogenic intermediates of the cycle. Consequently, acetyl CoA produced from whatever source must be used for energy, lipogenesis, cholesterogenesis, or ketogenesis.

p. 253. Gropper, S. S., Smith J. L., Groff J. L. Advanced nutrition and human metabolism. 5th ed. ISBN: 0495116572

I should also note that while odd-numbered-carbon fatty acids can produce half a glucose each, they are not very common in the diet, and in any case, this does not change the equation very much. This is also one of the reasons why proteins cannot be made into glucose. As I said before, amino acids either feed directly into the Krebs Cycle or they get made into Acetyl CoA.

This is not to say fats are not a significant source of energy. Discounting glycolysis, each fatty acid chain, depending on the length of it, can produce the equivalent of 8-12 glucose molecules of energy. And there are three of these per triglyceride molecule. However, each triglyceride can only produce half an actual molecule of glucose. Note that this is off the top of my head, and it's a long time since I did any kind of biochemistry in depth, so the exact numbers may be slightly wrong; but the principle is the same. Fat is an excellent energy store, but it's a horrible way to make glucose.

This leaves just carbohydrate. Which you're restricting. Oops.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

From proteins only as a last resort. Only when there is literally nothing else left to metabolize will the body start metabolizing protein. And even then it will not turn it into fat, or glycogen (not fat, because it makes no sense to turn protein into just another energy store when you're already lacking energy. And not glycogen, because...well, I'll cover it in the next couple of paragraphs). Under the circumstances of starvation or very extreme periods of prolonged exercise, which are the only circumstances where protein catabolism would be present in significant amounts, amino acid catabolic products would either feed straight into the Krebs Cycle or come out as AcCoA, which would probably then go straight into ketogenesis. There is no point in producing an energy store when you're starving.

As for fat...it takes 2 triglycerides to make a single glucose molecule, since the glycerol portion is the only bit of it that can do this. The rest, the 3 long hydrocarbon chains, get broken up into acetyl CoA units. And because the reaction catalyzed by the pyruvate dehydrogenase enzyme is irreversible, this means that through no known mechanism is it possible to get fatty acids to turn into pyruvate, which means that under no known mechanism is it possible for large-scale gluconeogenesis to occur with just fats:



p. 253. Gropper, S. S., Smith J. L., Groff J. L. Advanced nutrition and human metabolism. 5th ed. ISBN: 0495116572

I should also note that while odd-numbered-carbon fatty acids can produce half a glucose each, they are not very common in the diet, and in any case, this does not change the equation very much. This is also one of the reasons why proteins cannot be made into glucose. As I said before, amino acids either feed directly into the Krebs Cycle or they get made into Acetyl CoA.

This is not to say fats are not a significant source of energy. Discounting glycolysis, each fatty acid chain, depending on the length of it, can produce the equivalent of 8-12 glucose molecules of energy. And there are three of these per triglyceride molecule. However, each triglyceride can only produce half an actual molecule of glucose. Note that this is off the top of my head, and it's a long time since I did any kind of biochemistry in depth, so the exact numbers may be slightly wrong; but the principle is the same. Fat is an excellent energy store, but it's a horrible way to make glucose.

This leaves just carbohydrate. Which you're restricting. Oops.

Where did I say the body would be getting glycogen from protein and fats on a carb restricted diet? Why aren't you factoring in all the fruits, veggies, legumes, and diary products that carb restricted people eat?

The body can use fruits, veggies, legumes, and diary products to produce glycogen - no depletion there. You don't *need* carbs in the form of grains to have enough glycogen for normal daily function.

Look at the empirical evidence - people carry on with a low carb diet all the time just fine. I carry on just fine and I feel great doing it. I'm hardly glycogen depleted, my body fat percentage has decreased, and I crash after eating carbs if I don't immediately exercise afterwards.

And you simply can't deny the fact that our modern diet has too many carbs as options and we eat too much of them, far more than what our bodies need for a sufficient level of glycogen. We eat more than enough and all that excess that doesn't get turned into glycogen gets turned into fat. How is this not a good reason to restrict carbs?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Where did I say the body would be getting glycogen from protein and fats on a carb restricted diet? Why aren't you factoring in all the fruits, veggies, legumes, and diary products that carb restricted people eat?

The body can use fruits, veggies, legumes, and diary products to produce glycogen - no depletion there. You don't *need* carbs in the form of grains to have enough glycogen for normal daily function.

Look at the empirical evidence - people carry on with a low carb diet all the time just fine. I carry on just fine and I feel great doing it. I'm hardly glycogen depleted, my body fat percentage has decreased, and I crash after eating carbs if I don't immediately exercise afterwards.

And you simply can't deny the fact that our modern diet has too many carbs as options and we eat too much of them, far more than what our bodies need for a sufficient level of glycogen. We eat more than enough and all that excess that doesn't get turned into glycogen gets turned into fat. How is this not a good reason to restrict carbs?

I'm just responding to what you wrote. You said that glycogen stores were repleted by fat, not me. You said glycogen stores were repleted by protein, not me. And you did not have any mention of fruit or vegetables, or legumes, or dairy products. If you don't write it down, how am I supposed to tell what you mean? I'm not a mind reader.

Also, I never said, or implied, that there was a lack of carbohydrate in a 'typical' diet - whatever that is.