Should we (humans) be eating Carbohydrates ?

[tubamanandy]

It's a question I've often wondered about.

I'm no expert but from an evolutionary point of view, it's only been very recently that we've had carbs in our diets. I don't think our bodies actually need them - could it just be that some people's bodies can deal with them and some can't ?

Could do with some clarity on this from someone who has studied it in some detail.......just to put it out of my head

 

[Mr_Pot]

Despite evidence to the contrary from watching The Flintstones, I am sure the Stone Age diet must have included fruit, berries and wild vegetables. Also gorillas and chimpanzees are largely vegetarian. The difference is more likely to be that our carbs are highly refined and have been developed to have a higher starch to fibre ratio.

 

[Mbaker]

Our bodies can make the 1 teaspoon of glucose we require to function, and the brain runs efficiently (some say better) on ketones.

I believe I read in evolutionary terms we have only had the modern grains / carbs etc approximately 1 day in our existence (please correct me if I am wrong).

We have for a longer time had low carb vegetables, meat, fish, nuts and previously just seasonal sweet fruit. Our bodies are setup to store fat for famine times, but this never comes, so with modern lifestyles and high carbs we just pile on fat.

Some of the population can handle higher carbs, but based on the number of overweight, obese and persons with pre-diabetic / diabetic numbers, I would say the modern amount of carbohydrates does not work for around 60 percent plus of humans over a mid term life (around 40 to 50 years - my opinion).

 

[barrym]

Also worth noting that even the fruit we would have eaten in paleo times would have been seasonal so any carbs would only have been for a couple of months while they hung on the tree. All the preserving and growing/getting 365 days a year are new and our bodies were never designed for it.

Edit: beaten to it about seasonal.

 

[bulkbiker]

It's a question I've often wondered about.

I'm no expert but from an evolutionary point of view, it's only been very recently that we've had carbs in our diets. I don't think our bodies actually need them - could it just be that some people's bodies can deal with them and some can't ?

Could do with some clarity on this from someone who has studied it in some detail.......just to put it out of my head

Just look at how many essential carbs there are (answer is zero in case you were wondering).
Is that enough of a clue?

 

[Boo1979]

Humans are omnivores and as such are evolved to eat both animal and plant based foods. Recent ( in evollutionary terms) availibility of high density refined and selectively bred carbs and out of season fruit etc is something of a problem, for aome metabolisms / bodies more than others
https://www.livescience.com/53483-omnivores.html

 

[Mr_Pot]

Just look at how many essential carbs there are (answer is zero in case you were wondering).
Is that enough of a clue?

That doesn't mean that Stone Age man didn't eat them. It is a lot easier to pick some berries than catch a sabre-toothed tiger!

 

[AdamJames]

I think the distinction between whether we should, and whether we need to, is quite interesting.

I find carbs addictive and therefore shouldn't, even before I was type 2, because they helped me get fat. Now I *certainly* shouldn't, or at least need to be very careful with them. Conversely, my trial of low-carbing didn't agree well with me, but that may have been because I did it wrong and I'll be trying again.

But has there ever been a study comparing those who "zero carb" vs those who "moderate carb"?

I suspect, as is so often the case, that the problem is the word "we". Different people react differently. Take a look at this chap: https://zerocarbzen.com/2017/07/18/zero-carb-interview-chris-cogswell/

Getting rid of carbs seems to have done him the world of good. Not sure I'd react the same doing what he does.

 

[bulkbiker]

That doesn't mean that Stone Age man didn't eat them. It is a lot easier to pick some berries than catch a sabre-toothed tiger!

I think we would have been competing with the sabre toothed tiger not eating them.. early man probably would have preferred a mammoth steak..he certainly wouldn't have been popping down to the bakery for a loaf or washing it down with a coke.

 

[Kristin251]

The fruit today is more like candy. It was much smaller and much less sweet.

 

[Hotpepper20000]

I think we also have to distinguish between grains and above ground vegetables and berries. I can eat any carb that's above ground with very little impact on my BG. Even a small apple from my tree is fine.
Now a thin wrap or a spoonful of rice and I'm in double digits.
I understand for some almost zero carb is a choice but I love food and feel better with a mixture, my body and mental health does better with this.

 

[Mr_Pot]

early man probably would have preferred a mammoth steak

I think you're getting your information from The Flintstones as well! Bringing down a mammoth with a pointed stick even with a bit of flint attached would be pretty tricky. The OP said that it is only recently we have had carbs in our diet. My point was that it is the type of carbs not the fact that we have them at all.

 

[bulkbiker]

I think you're getting your information from The Flintstones as well! Bringing down a mammoth with a pointed stick even with a bit of flint attached would be pretty tricky. The OP said that it is only recently we have had carbs in our diet. My point was that it is the type of carbs not the fact that we have them at all.

Well as an old ex archaeologist.... there were probably a lot smaller prey around too which early man would have eaten.
I doubt there's much meat on a sabre toothed tiger anyway.. probably far more carrion around in those days as well.

 

[britishpub]

@Mr_Pot is spot on.

What is causing the health “crisis” is the type of carbohydrate consumed, especially the heavily refined carbohydrates available now, and the huge quantities at low prices available.

Demonising carbohydrate as a food group, without differentiating between those that cause the real harm and those that are less so, is nonsensical and confuses the argument/message.

 

[bulkbiker]

Demonising carbohydrate as a food group, without differentiating between those that cause the real harm and those that are less so

Not wishing to be too picky but are you saying here that there are more harmful carbs and less harmful carbs?
You imply that all carbs are harmful (something with which I probably agree) but I'm not sure that's what you mean?

 

[Sue192]

I think we also have to distinguish between grains and above ground vegetables and berries. I can eat any carb that's above ground with very little impact on my BG. Even a small apple from my tree is fine.
Now a thin wrap or a spoonful of rice and I'm in double digits.
I understand for some almost zero carb is a choice but I love food and feel better with a mixture, my body and mental health does better with this.

I agree. I was reading a thread earlier today (can't remember which one) and there were a couple of comments along the lines of 'carbs aren't necessary'. I am uncomfortable with that statement: zero carbs might be fine for those members but for others it might lead to problems. Again, it all boils down to your body, your way of managing carbs. Straight after diagnosis, I cut out the usual suspects and significantly upped my intake of fat (although I can't take too high a fat intake), eggs, protein and mix in a few veggies like peppers and celery etc. But what I have found is that my hair is falling out, quite noticeably. While only cosmetic of course, this is upsetting (it wasn't great to begin with!) and I am wondering if my level of low-carb is too low for me. And to echo his comment, @britishpub is also spot on.

 

[Mr_Pot]

I agree. I was reading a thread earlier today (can't remember which one) and there were a couple of comments along the lines of 'carbs aren't necessary'. I am uncomfortable with that statement: zero carbs might be fine for those members but for others it might lead to problems. Again, it all boils down to your body, your way of managing carbs. Straight after diagnosis, I cut out the usual suspects and significantly upped my intake of fat (although I can't take too high a fat intake), eggs, protein and mix in a few veggies like peppers and celery etc. But what I have found is that my hair is falling out, quite noticeably. While only cosmetic of course, this is upsetting (it wasn't great to begin with!) and I am wondering if my level of low-carb is too low for me. And to echo his comment, @britishpub is also spot on.

As an aside, a common cause of hair loss is vitamin D deficiency, worth investigating if you haven't already.

 

[lucylocket61]

I have bowel issues, among other things. If I reduce my carbs too far i get ill. I avoid white refined carbs, but eat veg. I do not include potatoes as veg, as I have been told they are considered in the starch category. I do have wholemeal bread and a small amount of potato sometimes.

In my case, although nutritionally I may not need any carbs, for my whole body health i do need some.

 

[Mr_Pot]

Not wishing to be too picky but are you saying here that there are more harmful carbs and less harmful carbs?

The carbs might all be the same but it is a question of how they come "packaged". Plenty of fibre attached and consumption becomes self limiting. Trying to get the same amount of carbs as a jam doughnut from say cabbage would mean eating about 1.5kg of cabbage.

 

[Sue192]

As an aside, a common cause of hair loss is vitamin D deficiency, worth investigating if you haven't already.

Thank you for that, @Mr_Pot - you have reminded me of a comment (which I had forgotten) from my GP about impaired liver function 'but that's common with this'. Which I took to mean T2 diabetes.

Edited to add last sentence.