Posted on 04/05/2014 3:41:07 AM PDT by markomalley
So called junk food is fine as long as it is consumed in moderation. Michael Phelps admits that he loves fast food, and derives a lot of his total calories from what you would call junk food. Yet he is one of the greatest athletes of all time and is in phenomenal shape. The guy who spends his day on the couch eating McDonald's? Not so much.
Michael Phelps, Michael Phelps, Michael Phelps!
What does he have to do with anything normal? Nobody burns that kind of calories, but some people can eat that much...it’s not hard to do when you eat mostly starch and sugar.
You can’t answer my question because there is no nutritional value to sugar and starch for the average sedentary adult.
Here’s another question for you. How many miles a day would your average 170 lb man have to run in order to burn 12,000 calories?
And when you’re done with that, maybe you can explain the diabetes epidemic.
Why you can't just accept that and move on remains a mystery. People are responsible for themselves. You may not like that fact, but it is true. If someone chooses to consume more energy than they burn, and get fat in the process, then it is no ones fault but their own. It doesn't matter if the calories come from carbohydrates (starch and sugar as you refer to it), fat or protein. Too much food and not enough exercise will create fat people.
By the way, once you finally get around to learning something about human nutrition, you will no longer make silly claims like carbohydrates offer no nutritional value.
Just a few generations ago, the average American derived around 60% of their total daily calories from carbohydrates, the majority of which came from a highly processed and high GI product known as wheat flour. Even though the average American got 60 freaking percent of their calories from carbohydrates (highly refined!), obesity and diabetes were rare. The reason is because, back then, people worked liked hell and didn't sit at a desk or in front of a television/computer screen most of the day. The agrarian life was tough, physically, but you rarely saw an obese person, who wasn't a boozer, and diabetes wasn't an issue.
Same in countries like Japan. The average Japanese person back then existed on huge amounts of carbohydrates and consumption of high quality protein (meat and fish) was rare. But no one was obese and obesity related disease was hardly ever seen. It wasn't until the sedentary lifestyle and a diet higher in fat and protein caught up with their culture that we began seeing obesity, and the many metabolic disorders that result from obesity.
It has always been about calories in vs. calories out. Demonizing one macronutrient over another is for people who are looking for something to blame for their fatness, or are trying to sell a book or new diet fad. These are not serious people and you should try not being one of them.
Nothing has changed in our genetics in just a few generations so the answers to your many questions are very simple. You can choose to accept the truth or not; I really don't care. You could do yourself a lot of good, however, if you are truly interested in the subject, by purchasing and reading a good book about human nutrition.
Here endeth the lesson, grasshopper.
Look you condescending gowk!
I never said that.
>> How many miles a day would your average 170 lb man have to run in order to burn 12,000 calories? <<
Either you don't know, you can't figure it out, or you are embarrassed by the truth of the answer. I suspect the latter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.