[Ixiaus]

There is a major misconception that all carbs are bad. Specifically bad sources: refined sugar, high-fructose corn syrup (much worse than sugar), grains (wheat - gluten, is the worst, worse than sugar; rice, etc...), and legumes (particularly soy beans).

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).

[shawnz]

> high-fructose corn syrup (much worse than sugar)

> gluten, is the worst, worse than sugar

These sound like dubious claims to me. Do you have a citation?

[ars]

It's not just dubious it's wrong. Gluten is a protein, not a carb.

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.)

[Ixiaus]

Most people think bread is a carb, which there are many carbs coming from it - you also get gluten in that mix. You're right that it is a protein [gluten] and not a carb but this is a classic example of an unhelpful HN comment thread where pedanticism is slowly taking over unless my writing has the quality of oral debate speech followed by scientific citations.

[ars]

Bread is a carb and a protein, obviously.

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.

[Ixiaus]

I never said you weren't helpful! I think you're being pedantic - asking for sources on everything! If you ask for a scientific opinion on why something is bad or not for you; you can come up with sources for both sides!

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.

[ars]

I asked for sources? Are you confusing me for other people who replied?

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.

[Ixiaus]

I'm glad you're so skeptical but honestly no, I do not have citations, nor do I have the time to find the original source s that provided that information to me many years ago.

[ars]

I hope you learn from this thread. Because that source was wrong, and you need to update your beliefs.

[Devilboy]

HFCS and sugar are almost identical - both are about half fructose and half glucose. I don't think one is significantly worse than the other.

[pyre]

Sucrose (sugar) is a glucose bonded to a fructose.

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.

[natrius]

The bond in sucrose makes little difference. We've evolved to break that bond very easily. Since the internet tends to be a big fan of Lustig's sugar video, can I just cite him as saying they're the same?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose#Metabolism_of_sucrose

[pyre]

I've seen the video. I made no claims that the bond between the sugars in sucrose made a different. I was mostly attempting to explain the difference.

[peteretep]

> 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)

[pyre]

Maybe 'not by much,' but the difference is that sucrose as a 50/50 split of fructose-glucose, and HFCS has a 55/45 split. So if Fructose is bad for you, then HFCS has a higher concentration than sucrose (though only a 5% difference).

[fingerprinter]

>There is a major misconception that all carbs are bad.

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.

[Ixiaus]

What you've written here is pretty much what I meant to write in my comment. What is the name of your book by chance?

[pmahoney]

> high-fructose corn syrup (much worse than sugar)

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?

[dllthomas]

While this seems reasonable, and I whole-heartedly endorse your push for sources, it does call to mind a corn-industry sponsored commercial I saw a while back about HFCS that I found amusing. It said, "Sugar is sugar; your body can't tell the difference!" which sounded common-sensical buuut fructose, sucrose... well, lactose is a sugar too, and some of our bodies seems to be able to tell the difference there!

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.

[pmahoney]

I know that ad. I always angrily yell at the TV, "yes they're the same: equally bad!"

[stcredzero]

> There is a major misconception that all carbs are bad.

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.)

[jwdunne]

This is a little. It off topic and I could be really wrong but why don't you try a low calorie diet in general for 2 weeks followed by a healthy, balanced diet inc. both your proteins and complex carbs rather than doing the Atkins diet?

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...

[natrius]

600 calories a day is hard. Atkins is easy. I suspect both approaches will work, but Atkins will succeed more often because adherence is easier.

[stcredzero]

> 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?

That's excellent information. Thanks!

[Evbn]

Also called "South Beach" diet.

[nigori]

I'm not grokking how legumes are bad, can you please elaborate?

[Devilboy]

Most plants evolved mechanisms to stop their seeds and sprouts being eaten and digested. Legumes can be toxic to eat raw, contain aflatoxins and cause digestive issues - but they don't contribute much to your diet besides a bit of protein.

[Evbn]

And most humans developed a method to make inedible foods edible: cooking.