4 ms·
Grains are entirely different beasts from simple sugars (sucrose/corn syrup), and lumping them together (which is what the Paleo advocates) is pretty much scare
by pizza234 6y ago
Grains are entirely different beasts from simple sugars (sucrose/corn syrup), and lumping them together (which is what the Paleo advocates) is pretty much scaremongering to me.
In practical terms, anybody who eats 100g of sugar, and 100g of pasta, will notice a huge difference.
Paleo is very fashionable, but I wonder how many people will actually follow through in the long term (years), since eating very large amounts of meat is not realistically sustainable, in different ways (I have firsthand experience on this).
- carlmr 6y ago>In practical terms, anybody who eats 100g of sugar, and 100g of pasta, will notice a huge difference. I agree with you, but pasta is only 37% carbs. So 270g pasta (that's enough for 2 people!) and 100g sugar would need to be compared. However I still think this will be unfavorable to the sugar, since you won't be satiated for long, and the insulin crash will make you eat again soon. We can't ignore psychology on this, too. In the long run your hormones will beat your rational thinking, so you can of course theoretically lose weight on a high sugar diet, but you won't.
- pizza234 6y ago> I agree with you, but pasta is only 37% carbs. So 270g pasta (that's enough for 2 people!) and 100g sugar would need to be compared. Curiously, we're mixing cooked vs. uncooked. I've always been using dry pasta weight as reference (as the pasta is weighted before), but in context, your observations are more precise :)
- carlmr 6y agoI looked up dry, for cooked it would be 25% from what I found. But then it depends on how long you cook it.