ExRx.net

New article in Scientific American: Carbs against Cardio: More Evidence that Refined Carbohydrates, not Fats, Threaten the Heart

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... nst-cardio

By the same author as this one: http://www.slate.com/id/2248754/ previously discussed here: http://exrx.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6766

Although it's wise not to categorically demonize those in opposition, I can't help but wonder if big soda worships Satan.

It's funny, everyone keeps telling me i'm gonna have a heart attack...

We should have a thread on a collection of studies like this.

Perhaps the meat industry can call in the arcangels?

Thanks, Stu, for posting this. It's nice to see this in a main-line, well-accepted publication. I've posted the link on my Facebook profile, hoping that some of my friends and family will notice.

I always get excited when I see mainstream publications reporting on this. I was a little disappointed when I saw it was the same author as the last article but, hey, I'll take what I can get. At least it means people are noticing.

I wonder if obesity is the more significant predictor than food type.

IOW, keep your body fat reasonable and get your RDAs and then it doesn't matter the relative nutrient ratios.

Did you read the article? She starts off talking about three things: obesity, diabetes and heart disease. These are clearly all related. The article, and in my opinion it's correct, suggests that carbs are a major cause of all three.

By the way, it's easier to get all the RDAs if you replace grains in your diet with vegetables and eat abundant animal products. However, I question the logic and therefore the validity of RDAs anyway. If they could mess up so badly on the macronutrients, how accurate do you think they are on the micronutrients?

In my opinion, "RDA"'s are more the basic amount rather than an optimal amount. An amount, which if recieved from whole nutrition sources, might stop the onset of nutritional deficencies. But simply meeting this minimum amount over the long term is not what one would call healthy...and they are based on 2000 cal diets, which of course, if you are eating paleo and are an athlete would be incredibly low.

They do have RDA's for fat and protein but not carbs...well they supposedly have 300 grams of carbs now but I'm not sure if that's official or unofficial at this point. But the macronutrients obviously matter a little bit because they all three have different effects on the body. How could they not matter? It's like saying calcium, iron and potassium do the same thing. They serve different purposes. The three do macronutrients have an underlying purpose, providing energy, but they all also have specific functions as well.

Not only are the three Mac's different but, within them too.

Theres 15 different types of saturated fat itself, different types of carbs and protein, etc. So many people think that, as long as you get enough cals your good, which is just ignorance.

Total calories do matter. Think about it. It's a matter of physics. If you keep getting more than you need, by overload, it will need to be stored, or something. That said, Macronutrients DO matter. It's a matter of the hormal actions they promote. You can go lowered carb, or what I prefer, lowered starch (knock out the processed crap), but if you eat a ton of it, you still are likely to gain weight. Macronutrients, portion size and moderation are keys, IMHO.
Tim

Except that you can't sustainably use protein for energy, so you can mostly throw those calories out.

That is like saying that if you keep putting stuff out for a compulsive hoarder, he will fill up his house if you give him to much stuff. Even if you take his truck and replace it with a moped.