> gluten, is the worst, worse than sugar
These sound like dubious claims to me. Do you have a citation?
And to say legumes are bad when they are actually by far the best kind of carb you can eat is nuts. (Nuts are good too.)
You think you were helpful and I am not because you believe what you say. But you have not stopped to consider that perhaps you are simply wrong and I am calling you out on it.
Your problem is that you wrote something wrong - doubly wrong. You wrote that gluten is a carb, and that it's bad for you. But not only is it not a carb, it's also not bad for you unless you are sensitive to it. Wheat is what took humanity from weak scattered encampments to full civilizations, it's not called the staff of life for nothing.
And when you added the legumes are bad for you, all doubt I had if perhaps you were right vanished.
I'm telling you straight up, STOP being pedantic! This is a discussion forum, not a scientific peer-review!
"...all doubt I had if perhaps you were right vanished." who the hell wants to even have a reasoned conversation with you? I sure don't - I'm willing to be educated or have my mind changed but now you're both being pedantic and throwing insulting sentences into the mix COMPLETELY throwing out my desire to be educated BY YOU.
Fuck off. You're an example of what's wrong with Hacker News IMHO - this used to be a great place for conversation but its devolved heavily into a hostile discussion environment.
And I never said anything even remotely pedantic. (Thinking gluten is a carb is not pedantic - it's wrong.)
You have been told you were wrong from a whole bunch of different people, but somehow decided they were all me. It's interesting to speculate on why you did that. A mental defense against being told you were wrong perhaps?
It's time for you to go restart your eduction on this matter from scratch - and not from me.
HFCS is a solution of unbonded fructose and glucose. The most common HFCS is 45% glucose / 55% fructose.
HFCS may be worse for you if fructose is worse for you. That said, the concentrations aren't that much different.
I'm not going to dig out the citations (because I'm not sure where I'd find them) but I'm pretty certain I read recently in a credible source:
* Fructose is worse for you
* ... but HFCS and sugar contain similar amounts
* HFCS is really bad for you
* ... but no worse for you than sugar (which is also really bad for you)
Define "bad".
Lots of these posts seem to come around to the same few topics so if you've read this before, safely move one.
But, IMO, carbs are about your fitness goals. The way carbs interact with your body dictate that they should be considered in conjunction with your fitness goals. I don't consider carbs "bad", but I do consider them completely misunderstood.
When I'm trying to lose weight, say for a meet or a show or perhaps for getting ready for my preseason, I limit carbs and use my own modified carb-cycling routine.
When I'm trying to get much stronger and gain weight, I use another version of my own modified carb-cycling routine.
Carbs are the key. Of course carbs aren't bad (so I agree with the overall statement), but they can be extremely detrimental for someone looking to lose weight or a sendentar person looking to just maintain.
I've written about this extensively in my fitness books. Each book recommends a certain general food philosophy based on the goals of the book generally geared around carbs: type to consume, when to consume and how much. I firmly believe that if more people understood the interaction with carbs and the hormones in their body they would have the capability of leading healthier lives.
This is controversial at best (see, for example, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-sweetener-...). I know there's money behind corn/HFCS, but what is your source for this claim?
Of course, this isn't evidence one way or the other for the claim in question, really. Bad arguments for side A aren't arguments for side B - just hoping others find it as amusing as I did.
For people in general, they aren't. For me in particular, they might be especially bad. In any case, I'm essentially doing the Atkins Diet as an experiment. (I suspect I'm pre-diabetic.)
I've read in a few places that restricting your diet to 600 calories a day for 2 weeks has shown a reversal in type 2 diabetes. If you believe you're pre-diabetic, perhaps this may help? If it works for full blown diabetics, could it also work for a pre-diabetic?
There are tonnes of pages in Google on this but the jist is that this study was done at the Uni of Newxastle and it's funnily enough called the 'Newcastle diet'. Here's a link with more info: http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diet/newcastle-study-600-calorie-d...
That's excellent information. Thanks!
Sweet potatoes as carbs are very good for you; fruit (particularly pears, apples, coconut - very good for you, pineapple, bananas).
The topic is quite complicated and difficult to navigate, but there's a lot of good information out there. Particularly in the primal/paleo lifestyle (which I think is a little bit extreme but the knowledge and rationale is sound).