4 ms·

> There is no significant evidence that refined or unrefined carbs are bad for your weight loss There's a ton of evidence, actually. See GCBC. > there is no

> There is no significant evidence that refined or unrefined carbs are bad for your weight loss There's a ton of evidence, actually. See GCBC. > there is no evidence-based way to get results High fat diets work. The clinical trials are pretty clear. Eat more saturated fat and less starch, and people get thin. Also, this "refined carbohydrate" and "glycemic index" business is pretty much nonsense. Carbs are carbs. It doesn't much matter if the source is sugar or rye bread. The total resulting insulin exposure is the same.

Todd 16y ago
True. However, carbs in the form of whole foods (like whole grain bread) take longer to process and don't cause the insulin spike. The insulin response is part of the problem that these diets seek to address.
KirinDave 16y ago
Please link citations to real studies instead of a book. If GCBC is a quality, well-sourced work, I'm sure this should be trivial. Saying, "read this book" is not helpful in this discussion. You don't even offer references from the book, you're telling us to read the whole thing just to even address your claims.
- jerf 16y ago
  In another of your comments, you claim to be a fan of GCBC. I find it difficult to believe you are a "fan" of GCBC when you are apparently unaware of the tens of pages of citations it has in the back of it. I am not making up that number. And yes, it cites the studies that are not in its "favor" and discusses them too. Your comment is basically "You're being too informative. Could you break it down for me further, again, one more time?" Seriously, no. People have already summarized it endlessly, ask Google about it, or even just poke around this thread a bit. If you want the full effect, go buy it and read it. (That's targeted at everybody reading this, not just you personally KirinDave.)
  - pmccool 16y ago
    > Your comment is basically "You're being too informative. Could you break it down for me further, again, one more time? To me, his comment is basically "primary, not secondary, source materials please". Where I come from this is a reasonable request.
  - roel_v 16y ago
    "Your comment is basically "You're being too informative. Could you break it down for me further, again, one more time?"" I have no stakes or position in the argument, but this line of reasoning can basically be applied to anything one can debate about. We could just add a first post to all threads that says 'go to scholar.google.com' and look for yourself!' but I don't think that's the point. The point of these (informal) threads is to break vast quantities of information down into specific chunks that a few people in the thread care about at this moment. In that context I don't think it's too much to ask from commenters to reference specific items, facts or studies, and not resort to 'read 300 page book xyz'.
briancooley 16y ago
The theoretical advantage of whole grain carbohydrates over refined carbohydrates is that the whole grains are less apt to cause a big dip in serum glucose that follows the huge insulin spike that follows consumption of refined carbs. That dip leads to insulin-induced hunger and possibly further caloric intake. But mostly I agree with you.

Todd 16y ago

True. However, carbs in the form of whole foods (like whole grain bread) take longer to process and don't cause the insulin spike. The insulin response is part of the problem that these diets seek to address.

KirinDave 16y ago

Please link citations to real studies instead of a book. If GCBC is a quality, well-sourced work, I'm sure this should be trivial. Saying, "read this book" is not helpful in this discussion. You don't even offer references from the book, you're telling us to read the whole thing just to even address your claims.

jerf 16y ago
In another of your comments, you claim to be a fan of GCBC. I find it difficult to believe you are a "fan" of GCBC when you are apparently unaware of the tens of pages of citations it has in the back of it. I am not making up that number. And yes, it cites the studies that are not in its "favor" and discusses them too. Your comment is basically "You're being too informative. Could you break it down for me further, again, one more time?" Seriously, no. People have already summarized it endlessly, ask Google about it, or even just poke around this thread a bit. If you want the full effect, go buy it and read it. (That's targeted at everybody reading this, not just you personally KirinDave.)
- pmccool 16y ago
  > Your comment is basically "You're being too informative. Could you break it down for me further, again, one more time? To me, his comment is basically "primary, not secondary, source materials please". Where I come from this is a reasonable request.
- roel_v 16y ago
  "Your comment is basically "You're being too informative. Could you break it down for me further, again, one more time?"" I have no stakes or position in the argument, but this line of reasoning can basically be applied to anything one can debate about. We could just add a first post to all threads that says 'go to scholar.google.com' and look for yourself!' but I don't think that's the point. The point of these (informal) threads is to break vast quantities of information down into specific chunks that a few people in the thread care about at this moment. In that context I don't think it's too much to ask from commenters to reference specific items, facts or studies, and not resort to 'read 300 page book xyz'.

briancooley 16y ago

The theoretical advantage of whole grain carbohydrates over refined carbohydrates is that the whole grains are less apt to cause a big dip in serum glucose that follows the huge insulin spike that follows consumption of refined carbs. That dip leads to insulin-induced hunger and possibly further caloric intake. But mostly I agree with you.