It is amazing how the popular thinking swings back and forth.

The funny part is that even today, I read articles that say that the low carb diet isn't healthy. I subscribe to Men's health. I read stuff on the internet. I mean, this is the most up to date stuff... and most still don't buy into the high fat part of the low carb diet.

I think that's because many smart people just can't grasp the concept of fat being a good thing. We've heard all of our lives that it's bad bad bad bad bad.

I really like this article:

http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_a...getting_leaner

There's plenty of people disputing that theory. Here's one that takes your theory and plays with it, showing that the way we eat meat is completely different than how our ancestors ate meat:
http://www.naturalhub.com/natural_food_guide_meat.htm

In In Defense of Food, Pollan does an awesome job of showing the ridiculousness of "nutritionism" and shows how it creates that faddish pendulum effect on diet trends.

That is a great article if anyone is interested.

What do you mean disputing? There's nothing in article disputing that we need meat. It supports eating meat, just the healthy, free-range kind. And it says avoid bad foods like trans-fats. Nothing new or revolutionary there. And that we need an omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of 4:1 (although I believe it should be closer to 3:1).

EDIT: If you're referring to plant-eating, yes, our ancestors still ate plants. That's not in dispute, as the evidence is in our teeth. But what put us over the top is the ability to eat meat. Plants are low in carbs and calories. But since our brains use most of the calories we eat, to get bigger brains, you need more calories. That's where meat comes in. There's nothing about a low-carb diet that says "Don't eat vegetables." I eat lots of vegetables. But they're really low in calories. I just ate 2 cups of spinach. 50 calories. Not much. 6 oz of chicken breast, however, is 200 calories. Much more calorie-dense. But we certainly weren't eating plants like wheat and corn (which didn't even exist until about 10,000 years ago).

In any case, I agree with most of the premise of the article, but I don't think that person has any clue about how we actually evolved. Why are humans the only purely bipedal primates on the planet? One reason is because running on two legs is efficient. This allowed us to develop a unique form of hunting called "persistence" hunting. We wore down our prey. They couldn't run the long distances we could. Why would we need to evolve that type of hunting style if we only ate small animals? Small animals don't run that far for that long. Only big game does. And with big game comes fat, even if their stores of fat were low. Yes, humans ate small animals, but as "snacks." Big game was always the priority and still is.

I agree with eating free-range stuff. That's what I do unless it's completely unavoidable. And I also agree that people eat too much of everything, including fats. But it's much harder to overeat on fat than it is on carbs. And it doesn't take much fat to get sufficient calories from.

I didn't say that article disputed it. I just said that there are people who dispute it (look up what vegetarians say about our evolution). Anyway, it's not really an argument that I feel like having. I'm sure that both of us eat healthier than 99% of the population of the USA. ;)

You guys can thank me later

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKs0oEIVOck

Aww, I was having fun, too! Sitting in an anthropology class right now, talking about this exact thing. But yeah, check me edit above. I clarified a bit. And yeah, I've read what vegetarians say about our evolution, but our physiology just doesn't match the claims.

But yeah, you're right about eating healthier. My wife and I bought 52 oz of free-range chicken and 36 oz of free-range beef, with 24 oz of wild-caught salmon, fresh veggies and about 30 cups of berries (straw, black and rasp). The guy behind us at the checkout counter bought 3 2-liters of coke, and 15 frozen pizzas. He looked at what we were buying and totally had a look of shame and guilt on his face.

340 calories for today. Time for some fruit.


Add 80 for 1/2 cup of fat free cottage cheese, and probably another 80 for the little bit of fresh pineapple I had with it. So 500.

I thought I was the only one that checked out other people's grocery carts. The actual food to "food product" ratio of most shoppers is ridiculous. Everyone has frozen food products. Very few people have actual food in their carts.

The people that get me are the ones who'll have 20 Lean Cuisines or think that buying everything that's labeled "fat free" and "diet" is going to help them lose weight.

Healthy Choice Steamers FTW!

Heh. Oh yeah, if it has brown "natural" looking packaging with some green leaf logos and shit on it, it must be better for you as well. Greenwashing is the new "light."

Well, they are taking in less calories than they normally would be, I suppose.

I'll buy reduced fat or fat free when I can (such as fat free cottage cheese in my earlier post). I buy the sugar free Jello pudding cups from time to time. There are times (lets say monthly) when I crave chocolate. A 60 calorie pudding cup does the trick.

Just saying not all fat free stuff is bad, but I know the type of people you're talking about.

Anything with aspartame in it makes me want to reach down my throat, rip my stomach out through my mouth, wash it down with a garden hose, then gurgle with saltwater. I hate that shit.

I don't know. I probably shouldn't talk, because I've never had a problem dropping pounds when I want. That being said, I cook for my wife. She's dropped more weight when we're following the "Eat food. Not too much. Mainly vegetables" than anything else. Just by buying actual food: veggies, grains, beans, and such (stick to the outer aisles) instead of processed crap, we've both maintained slim builds. I still eat crap on occasion (hello chili burger), but it's the daily habits that I try to monitor.