Carbs are essential to a balanced diet. Cutting out complex carbs like grains and legumes is silly. Eat Whole Foods and balanced diet. Pass on the simple carbs and processed crap. Don’t fall for another fad diet.
Sure carbs are essential....to meet our Federal government's dietary guidelines for a "Balanced" diet. Whatever that means. I'm not sure what the concept of a "balanced diet" is really trying to promote, because it sure as hell doesn't seem to be health.
Carbohydrates are NOT an essential macronutrient. There are way too many of us out there currently eating little to no carbs and going quite well. That's a huge understatement. There are way too many world class (and world record holder) athletes to write off as anecdotes. Several are in middle age. Minor example: My CO just informed me that I have the 2nd highest physical fitness score in the state for National guardsmen on the new 6 event ACFT. (and no, I can't verify if that's really true, but whatever, apparently I did alright). I'm 46 years old, only 5'5", and had never taken that test before. That should be impossible without carbs right? Well, no...my results are not crazy, I can point to plenty of folks like me, but with far more impressive results.
Carbs aren't categorically bad. I tolerate carbs relatively well now, much now better than in my 20's. I treat them like rocket fuel, or like a flex fuel rally car with nitro boost. That nitro boost (carbs) can be useful, but is not essential, and comes with a cost. I use them strategically, but sparingly. Or maybe not at all. On really hard, long, consecutive, intensely glycolytic days, some carbs can help with performance. But for the most part, I make enough glucose just eating meat, and don't need, and don't improve by taking in extra carbs. I make enough glucose, and do WAY better eating 0-20 grams or carbs a day over the long term. I can eat 150-ish grams, but that's a very rare day.
Running primarily on carbs (not being fat-adapted) means you have to fuel up all the time. Which sucks in the mountains....or as an infantryman. The gas tank for carbs is pretty tiny (2000-ish calories). The gas tank for fat is enormous, and the fuel burns clean and efficiently....given sufficient training and adaptation. Granted, I'm pretty well adapted to this fat burning thing, having been at it a long time. It takes several months. Some people will find they do better with more carbs (100 plus) even after a year. That's fine too.
I view the eating of grains as kind of a fad. Humans have only been doing it 10-15,000 years, and that's only some human populations, eating some grains, prepared in some particular ways. That's not a very long time from an evolutionary perspective. Just because we can eat them, doesn't mean it's ideal.
So a basic scientific question is appropriate....how well is all that grain eating working out? There are populations worth comparing.
Grains (and agriculture generally) have their uses...cheap, easily stored calories that keep well, and allow people to come together and develop civilization. But there's been some pretty major health costs that have come with it (and agriculture in general) as well. It looks to me like we're devolving. I'd rather approximate living off the wild land. My health has improved immeasurably since doing so.
We modern westerners are so arrogant about food...we assume that because we grew up with agriculture, and that supposedly scientific government agencies telling us what to believe, that agricultural based diets are the only proper way to live.
How's that working out?
Some people do okay on some grains in some quantities. Some don't. On a population level, I'd take the health, body composition, physical capacity, height/size, and longevity of most any semi-nomadic plains Indians or Massai over any population of agricultural based American or western European circa 1800. And since the dietary guidelines came out? Good god.
Eating an animal based diet may be suddenly much more popular, but is it really a crazy new fad? Is trying to follow basic human evolution a fad?
