3 ms·
Are you sure that's false? The Wikipedia article on carbohydrates[1] says: "Carbohydrates are a common source of energy in living organisms, however, no carbohy
by michaelkeenan 16y ago
Are you sure that's false? The Wikipedia article on carbohydrates[1] says: "Carbohydrates are a common source of energy in living organisms, however, no carbohydrate is an essential nutrient in humans."
It cites a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by Dr Eric C. Westman[2].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate#Nutrition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate#Nutrition
[2] http://www.ajcn.org/content/75/5/951.2.full http://www.ajcn.org/content/75/5/951.2.full
- noodle 16y agoyou don't need carbs to live, but they certainly help when you're doing heavy exercise and the like. on the flip side of that coin, its my understanding that grains in particular as a source of carbohydrates are particularly bad for you. moreso than something like a potato. i'm looking for a source to edit in.
- hynek 16y agoTechnically you are right, however only very few exercise that heavy, that they would have to re-feed on carb heavy food. Marathon runners come to mind. The human body is pretty good at transforming fat into glucose, so the average exerciser won't have problems on a low-medium carb diet. It's a nice excuse for an occasional pizza though. ;) And yes, grains like wheat are worse than potatoes or grains like rice because additionally to the insulin issues they share with all carbs, they are also rich at anti-nutrients like gluten, phytatic acid or lectins. There is really absolutely no reason to eat grains (thus men didn't do so until like 10k years ago).
- noodle 16y agoi re-carb on light food after my 2-3 hour workouts. it just leaves me less run-down the next day. but heavy grain diets are a stable of the modern way of life because its really cheap and easy to produce huge volumes of food for it.
- hynek 16y agoI agree that it's a staple however the general health (especially MS and diabetes) are a strong indicator that I don't want to take part in that.
- Nick_C 16y ago> men didn't do so until like 10k years ago This get quoted quite a bit here, so let me point out that in itself it is not a supporting argument. We adults were not able to metabolise lactose either until we evolved the ability about 8,000 years ago. Evolution is still ongoing, thank goodness. Yes, all you lactose-intolerant people (including me) are throwbacks.
- hynek 16y agoLook at every single diabetic and gluten intolerant person out there and you'll see, it pretty much makes sense. :) Look at the pancreas, it's still much too small and overwhelmed but our "staples". And men still suffer from the anti-nutrients I mentioned (in contrast to rats which are used to it). So obviously the evolution didn't do much good in the short time. I agree, that the evolutionary approach is no proof. However, it's a nice logical backing to scientific results. Men got shorter and more short-lived when switching from hunter-gatherer to farmer...doesn't sound like good stuff to me.
- djacobs 16y agoYeah, it's false. We don't have to consume any one carbohydrate to survive, but in the end, the body's core processes use glucose (and others) to produce the energy we use to do work. Fat can be metabolized into carbohydrates, too. But one way or the other, we need carbs.
- hynek 16y agoMark clearly wrote "There is no requirement in human _nutrition_ for carbs" (emphasize by me) and you said it's "blatantly wrong."