PDA

View Full Version : How Much Sugar?



Clozedeyez20
06-03-2005, 03:52 PM
Because our body does need sugar, how much is too much? or how much is too little? About how many grams should we have a day?

rockstarsar
06-03-2005, 04:07 PM
You don't need refined sugar. Your body converts carbohydrates into glucose.

Clozedeyez20
06-03-2005, 04:17 PM
so basically... none? just stick with the carbs

JMillion
06-03-2005, 04:34 PM
I'm sure some fruit and milk can cover the sugar intake, no need to seek out more sugar sources.

johnnyironboard
06-03-2005, 04:51 PM
Because our body does need sugar

our bodies do not need sugar it only needs fat and protein. It uses sugar when it is present.

MattM
06-03-2005, 11:13 PM
i eat no refined sugar what so ever and i feel great - you are best just to avoid it all together

Steve_W
06-04-2005, 08:39 PM
our bodies do not need sugar it only needs fat and protein. It uses sugar when it is present.

So you're saying we do not need carbs? Elaborate please.

Macros
06-04-2005, 08:52 PM
I'm not positive but I dont' think there's any dietary requirement for carbohydrates...your body can get along fine on fat/protein alone. Hunters and gatherers did it for thousands of years...when fruit/berries/roots/whatnot were not available during the winter, they subsisted almost purely on meat.


edit: although of course, it's highly unadvisable. Vegetables provide the body with tons of nutrients and fiber, and they're mainly carbohydrates...so an entirely carbohydrate-free diet would be hard to maintain without their nutritional benefit.

johnnyironboard
06-05-2005, 05:44 AM
So you're saying we do not need carbs? Elaborate please.

Fat and Protein deficiencies make you sick and would eventually kill you- they are essential. Carbs are not.

Cynical_Simian
06-05-2005, 09:56 AM
Hunters and gatherers did it for thousands of years...when fruit/berries/roots/whatnot were not available during the winter, they subsisted almost purely on meat.

Err...contrary to the stereotype of Man the Hunter, at the extremely early times you're talking about (i.e. before people developed the notion of storing food for times of scarcity), hunting techniques/technology was poor enough that meat was a relatively rare part of the diet. The 'gathering' component of hunter-gatherer was a far more significant and regular contributor of calories for our ancestors. During winter, when meat spoilage wasn't an issue, a large kill could provide the bulk of calories for a group, but it would still be supplemented with non-meat foods.

As for the notion of surviving on fat/protein alone, it would be about as sustainable as surviving purely on carbohydrates and the trace fat/protein you'd be getting from them. In other words, as long as your caloric levels are high enough it'd be possible but so far from optimal and damaging in the long run that it's pretty much irrelevant. Carbs have hormonal and, as macros mentioned, micronutritional benefits and, of course, provide the body with readily usable energy needed for normal functioning/activity.

psinide
06-05-2005, 01:40 PM
prehistoric man would also eat the liver which is full of glycogen.

BackInTheJox
06-05-2005, 01:55 PM
I think I just lost 100 IQ points by reading this thread.

Whoever said we don't need carbohydrates, or that there is no dietary requirement for carbohydrates should probably just quit life now.

johnnyironboard
06-05-2005, 01:55 PM
As for the notion of surviving on fat/protein alone, it would be about as sustainable as surviving purely on carbohydrates and the trace fat/protein you'd be getting from them. In other words, as long as your caloric levels are high enough it'd be possible but so far from optimal and damaging in the long run that it's pretty much irrelevant.


I don't want to rain on your parade but you don't know what you are talking about.

BackInTheJox
06-05-2005, 01:56 PM
I don't want to rain on your parade but you don't know what you are talking about.


Well then here comes a monsoon for you: you know even less.

johnnyironboard
06-05-2005, 01:57 PM
I think I just lost 100 IQ points by reading this thread.

Whoever said we don't need carbohydrates, or that there is no dietary requirement for carbohydrates should probably just quit life now.


Statement no.1 is probably correct.

BackInTheJox
06-05-2005, 01:58 PM
Statement no.1 is probably correct.



Thanks to you.

And statement number two is ridiculously correct.

johnnyironboard
06-05-2005, 02:08 PM
Thanks to you.

And statement number two is ridiculously correct.

Eat 16 oz of sweet tarts a day for a month and report back. I'll eat 16 oz of ground beef for a month and report back. We'll see who got the better end of the deal.

BackInTheJox
06-05-2005, 03:21 PM
Eat 16 oz of sweet tarts a day for a month and report back. I'll eat 16 oz of ground beef for a month and report back. We'll see who got the better end of the deal.



What in God's name are you talking about????


Only an idiot would advocate sweet tarts. But only an even bigger idiot would advocate no carbohydrates.

Give up the straw man techniques, tough guy. I never suggested anything like that. ALL THREE MACRONUTRIENTS ARE NECESSARY FOR A FUNCTIONAL, HEALTHY INDIVIDUAL. Obviously you should steer clear of processed sugars as much as possible, and opt for quality sources of carbohydrates, fats, and protein.


Copmlex carbohydrates are GOOD. Illiteracy and idiocy are BAD.

TheZenMachine
06-05-2005, 03:27 PM
Carbs are important, contrary to what the deceased doctor atkins and his money machine will have you believe. Your body runs off of glucose, which is essentially carbs broken down into sugars. The body can also break down protein and fats into glucose when needed, however you need protein and fats for other processes as well, cutting out anything is just stupid.

Cynical_Simian
06-05-2005, 03:28 PM
Eat 16 oz of sweet tarts a day for a month and report back. I'll eat 16 oz of ground beef for a month and report back. We'll see who got the better end of the deal.

Try a different carbohydrate from pure, processed sugar if you want a more reasonable comparison. For example, 10 oz. (the calories are approximately equal to 16 oz. of ground beef at this quantity) of oats a day would give you fiber and some fat and (incomplete) protein.

BackInTheJox
06-05-2005, 03:29 PM
Carbs are important, contrary to what the deceased doctor atkins and his money machine will have you believe. Your body runs off of glucose, which is essentially carbs broken down into sugars. The body can also break down protein and fats into glucose when needed, however you need protein and fats for other processes as well, cutting out anything is just stupid.



Exactly. It's poor saps like Johnnyironboard who have been maliciously brainwashed by a dead fat man and his voodoo nonesense that lead to the spreading of gross misinformation.

BackInTheJox
06-05-2005, 03:31 PM
Try a different carbohydrate from pure, processed sugar if you want a more reasonable comparison. For example, 10 oz. (the calories are approximately equal to 16 oz. of ground beef at this quantity) of oats a day would give you fiber and some fat and (incomplete) protein.



Even so, his comparision is ridiculous and pointless. Why would anyone consciously eliminate an entire macronutrient group, whether it's carbs or protein. It's like saying:

Ok, you take nothing but a can of gas, I'll take a disassembled car motor, and we'll see who can drive to California the fastest using only those things. We'll see who got the better end of the deal.

Macronutrients should not be mutually exclusive, and, for all intents and purposes, CAN'T be if you want to have any hope of functioning.

I get the feeling Johnnyironboard failed the analogy portion of the SAT's miserably.

WillWork4Muscle
06-05-2005, 03:34 PM
You do not need to worry about not getting sugar in your diet, only worry about getting too much.
As for your body not "needing" sugar, as a medical pro I can tell you that "sugar" in whatever form you ingest it or however your body produces it is as important to your brain as oxygen is. But you need not worry about it unless you are diabetic. Just eat and your body will take care of the rest.

Cynical_Simian
06-05-2005, 03:35 PM
Even so, his comparision is ridiculous and pointless. Why would anyone consciously eliminate an entire macronutrient group, whether it's carbs or protein. It's like saying:

Ok, you take nothing but a can of gas, I'll take a disassembled car motor, and we'll see who can drive to California the fastest using only those things. We'll see who got the better end of the deal.

Macronutrients should not be mutually exclusive, and, for all intents and purposes, CAN'T be if you want to have any hope of functioning.

I get the feeling Johnnyironboard failed the analogy portion of the SAT's miserably.

Agreed. Like I said in my first post on this thread, this scenario is irrelevant given that a diet that lacks any macronutrient is by definition deficient and poor. The oats comparison was simply offered to demonstrate the absurdity of his straw man argument.

BackInTheJox
06-05-2005, 03:37 PM
Agreed. Like I said in my first post on this thread, this scenario is irrelevant given that a diet that lacks any macronutrient is by definition deficient and poor. The oats comparison was simply offered to demonstrate the absurdity of his straw man argument.


Gotcha.

johnnyironboard
06-05-2005, 04:45 PM
For example, 10 oz. (the calories are approximately equal to 16 oz. of ground beef at this quantity)

math is not your strong point.

johnnyironboard
06-05-2005, 04:49 PM
What in God's name are you talking about????


Only an idiot would advocate sweet tarts. But only an even bigger idiot would advocate no carbohydrates.

Give up the straw man techniques, tough guy. I never suggested anything like that. ALL THREE MACRONUTRIENTS ARE NECESSARY FOR A FUNCTIONAL, HEALTHY INDIVIDUAL. Obviously you should steer clear of processed sugars as much as possible, and opt for quality sources of carbohydrates, fats, and protein.


Copmlex carbohydrates are GOOD. Illiteracy and idiocy are BAD.

So you obviously don't believe a calorie is a calorie is that a correct statement?

Cynical_Simian
06-05-2005, 05:39 PM
math is not your strong point.

Yet another baseless assertion...

www.calorieking.com

10 oz. of rolled oats = 1065 calories
16 oz. 85% lean ground beef = 1000 calories

belaglazov
06-05-2005, 06:35 PM
you don't need any carbohydrates steffanson lived with the eskimos for years and at beluuve hospital he ate nothing but meat for 1 year and came out helathier this was published in medline.

belaglazov
06-05-2005, 06:37 PM
Also the brain runs a lot more efficiently on ketones and tissues prefer ketones over glucose. Forget your nuttition anlalysis. Ever read John Yudkin, Stefannson. You got a lot of re-wiring ahead of you.

belaglazov
06-05-2005, 06:40 PM
By the way jhonny you are right too bad these lost souls don't get it. There are no essential carbs the body can live without any carbs and be very healthy. Meat and fat has every vitamin you need to survivie except for vitamin c unless you eat the liver. Go read weston price nutritional and physical degeneration indegenous people for thousands of years have been living without carbs and are much halethier than the us which are 50 percent obese with their beloved carbs.

heavylifter954
06-05-2005, 06:46 PM
Eat 16 oz of sweet tarts a day for a month and report back. I'll eat 16 oz of ground beef for a month and report back. We'll see who got the better end of the deal.

i eat sweet tarts as part of my pwo meal they're made of dextrose...... sorry to offtrack this thread just thought some people might like to know that

MarkyMark83
06-05-2005, 07:16 PM
this post is quite funny...try working out hard and not eating any carbs im sure u will pass out under ur 300 lb squat quite quickly......

but, to get back to the original question, there are some times when the steady state of glucose supplied by complex carbs does not quite match up to the bodies demand, hence it is probably a good idea to have some sugar if working out for a long time (endurance) or even immediately after a tough workout, if i don't i feel super tired.....

rockstarsar
06-05-2005, 07:32 PM
By the way jhonny you are right too bad these lost souls don't get it. There are no essential carbs the body can live without any carbs and be very healthy. Meat and fat has every vitamin you need to survivie except for vitamin c unless you eat the liver. Go read weston price nutritional and physical degeneration indegenous people for thousands of years have been living without carbs and are much halethier than the us which are 50 percent obese with their beloved carbs.

Go off and eat zero carbs for twelve weeks, then come back and meet me at the squat rack. You will find it's impossible to get absolutely no carbs. Eggs have carbs. Vegetables have carbs. How the hell do you expect to be healthy?

BackInTheJox
06-05-2005, 08:22 PM
Go off and eat zero carbs for twelve weeks, then come back and meet me at the squat rack. You will find it's impossible to get absolutely no carbs. Eggs have carbs. Vegetables have carbs. How the hell do you expect to be healthy?


The same way he plans to learn how to use punctuation correctly! He doesn't!

Steve_W
06-05-2005, 10:29 PM
CHO is in fact the most powerfully hormone like macro you can eat. It provides a FAR better link with metabolic & mood regulators than protein or fat (this is a huge concept that everyone misses), and can be used as a serious weapon in your diet.

I think it's a great idea to include carbs with all meals if possible providing you don't exceed your carb target for the day.

How's your sex drive johnnyironboard? What about T levels? Does the keto breath drive the girls away?

belaglazov
06-06-2005, 11:46 AM
Hey rockstar i have been experimenting with zero carbs diets for a long time. Now your body switches from glucose to fat as it's primary source of energy. Eating fat is the most powerful nutrient there is to maximize gh. You guys need to do it for at least 4 months keeping carbs at 10 percent of your diet or zero maybe better. Everything you said i have tried already. I've tried carbs and fat and cycling ketogenic diet. My best results were on a no carb high fat diet for maximum performance. I adapted after 3 months.

belaglazov
06-06-2005, 11:47 AM
First of all i did do zero carbs for 4 months where i ate nothing but rib eye steak. I don't give a damn if you don't beleive me. Look at all the studies out there that have been done on indegenous people who have been living on zero carbs and have been super healthy. Oh and there's an adaptation period of 4 months for the fat enzymes to max themselves out and then you'll blow the glycogen guys away. You guys need to look way beyond the stuff you read and go do nutritional anthropology research go to the journals go read steffanson. Weston price tracked down a bunch of civilizations living on nothing but meat like the masai tribe. You can't just listen to the medical establishement these guys change their minds everyday. All i'm saying is yes a zero carb diet can be done without any nutritioanl deficiencies it's been proven time and time again. Exepriment yourself eat nothing but rib eyes i guarrantee once you adapt you'll have more energy than ever. During the first 1 month t levels drop and your body is adapting to fat the only difference between a full fat adaptation and ccycling keto diet is if you carb load you won't be truly fat adapted

belaglazov
06-06-2005, 11:48 AM
T levels sore when your burning ketones and the breath will go away too. Like i said adaptation of 3-6 months which no one has done.

BackInTheJox
06-06-2005, 01:37 PM
If anyone would like to see another thread where belaglazov gets blasted for his voodoo propaganda (and consistently poor spelling/grammar), mosey on over here:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=430733

johnnyironboard
06-06-2005, 02:53 PM
CHO is in fact the most powerfully hormone like macro you can eat. It provides a FAR better link with metabolic & mood regulators than protein or fat (this is a huge concept that everyone misses), and can be used as a serious weapon in your diet.

I think it's a great idea to include carbs with all meals if possible providing you don't exceed your carb target for the day.

How's your sex drive johnnyironboard? What about T levels? Does the keto breath drive the girls away?

Im 5"9 205 and 10%. Fat is great for test levels. I've done a CKD for years. Don't know about the breath but being rich and handsome must compensate. The original question was how much do we need- the answer is none. Can we use them if we have them? sure.

rockstarsar
06-06-2005, 03:06 PM
Fat and Protein deficiencies make you sick and would eventually kill you- they are essential. Carbs are not.

Then why are you on a CKD instead of an SKD? Hmm?

johnnyironboard
06-06-2005, 03:17 PM
Then why are you on a CKD instead of an SKD? Hmm?

I'm on a CKD because I like cakes and cookies and apple pie! I don't need it but I want it.

Steve_W
06-06-2005, 03:28 PM
Im 5"9 205 and 10%. Fat is great for test levels. I've done a CKD for years. Don't know about the breath but being rich and handsome must compensate. The original question was how much do we need- the answer is none. Can we use them if we have them? sure.

Another point that people miss. Eating low or no carbs is detrimental to T levels. Some carb reduction plans claim to maximise T levels however this is not the fact. If this were true then we would not see a statistically significant portion of men suffer erectile dysfunction, fatigue and other signs of low T when their carbs are restricted. Now dietary fat has been shown to increase T levels but this has only been shown when increasing fat from a low portion, less than 15% of your total caloric intake, up to 20-30% of total caloric intake. No further benefit has been established in raising fat intake from 30% to over 50% so it isnít really accurate to say low carb/high fat diets maximise T levels when they havenít been shown to offer any more benefit than a 40/30/30 split for example, not that splits are particularly important. There is an inherent problem with most studies that compare T levels between different groups. Some studies use a one times sampling and only measure "total" Testosterone, but "total" Test levels donít tell the whole story anyway. The most basic problem with "total" Testosterone is it's cyclical so it spikes and falls throughout the day making it easily manipulated in studies. I'd imagine this is how MuscleTech was able to market a Zinc based supplement that supposedly increased Test levels over 300%. I suspect it was dishonest manipulation of data by comparing nighttime T levels, with morning T levels since T is always highest in the morning.

Anyhow, back to the diet. Being as erectile function (your best measure of T levels without an actual blood panel) is tied mainly to "free" Testosterone rather than "total" Testosterone. Only about 2%-5% of your "total" T is actually "free" Testosterone. Free T is T that is not bound to sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) or albumin. Only "free" Testosterone is capable of binding to the androgen receptor to exert Testosterones many effects in the body, one of which being sexual function. A common problem for carb reduction dieters comes in. It is possible for someone to suffer erectile dysfunction and other symptoms of low Testosterone while their "total" testosterone level is normal, this indicates Testosterone production normal but an insufficient amount of "free" Testosterone due to high SHBG or hyper albumin. This is what seems to account for sexual disturbances in a carb reduced state, as an inverse relationship exists between insulin and SHBG. When insulin is kept very low SHBG is very high so while "total" Testosterone is maximised, "free" Testosterone, the number we are concerned with is minimised, creating a diet induced artificial state of low Testosterone. Brief large infrequent insulin spikes like carb ups don't seem to correct this problem either as dramatic spikes in T seem to also spike albumin levels; so even if SHBG were lowered briefly albumin would bind to any T that has been freed up from the carb up.

Ask MattM what his T levels were after how long of low carbing.

johnnyironboard
06-06-2005, 04:29 PM
So why haven't Lions and Tigers become extinct yet? All they eat is meat and they do fornicate.

belaglazov
06-06-2005, 05:34 PM
Steve w those studies with people restricting carbohydrates have only lasted for about 2 weeks like i said a true full adaptation takes 3-6 months. I've done it and there have been studies on this.

ratmonkey
06-06-2005, 05:36 PM
So why haven't Lions and Tigers become extinct yet? All they eat is meat and they do fornicate.

are you a tiger? strawman arguement again. we're talking humans, not large cats.

belaglazov
06-06-2005, 05:36 PM
Steve w you posted If this were true then we would not see a statistically significant portion of men suffer erectile dysfunction, fatigue and other signs of low T when their carbs are restricted.

Yes this is true for the first couple weeks until fat adaptation takes place. The enzymes for fat have to grow. Few people know this and i found this out a long time ago. Like i siad carb loading will not get you there.

johnnyironboard
06-06-2005, 06:03 PM
are you a tiger? strawman arguement again. we're talking humans, not large cats.

Well please explain how testosterone in large cats is different from testosterone in people.

ratmonkey
06-06-2005, 07:22 PM
Well please explain how testosterone in large cats is different from testosterone in people.

i would point out that they've evolved as predators and therefore make more complete use of the other animals they eat. we are not predators and have evolved to need all the macronutrients for optimal performance.

we are also one of few species that have yearlong mating seasons, and also have sex for pleasure. those cats you speak of having sex get erections through an entirely different mechanism than humans.

i think your neg rep has been sufficiently answered.

BackInTheJox
06-06-2005, 07:33 PM
So why haven't Lions and Tigers become extinct yet? All they eat is meat and they do fornicate.



And for that matter, why haven't all dolphins drowned yet?????


Sheesh. Idiot.

BackInTheJox
06-06-2005, 07:35 PM
By the way, does anyone else get a creepy feeling from belaglazov, as if he's trying to not-so-slyly lure people into a trap?

"C'mon guys, I swear, even though ALL the research says I'm wrong, I SWEAR, they only studied the first two weeks. As soon as week three begins, I SWEAR suddenly you will notice 100% decrease in body fat, 200% in lean mass, and you will grow two additional penises. I SWEAR guys, you just have to trust me!"

Steve_W
06-06-2005, 11:16 PM
By the way, does anyone else get a creepy feeling from belaglazov, as if he's trying to not-so-slyly lure people into a trap?

"C'mon guys, I swear, even though ALL the research says I'm wrong, I SWEAR, they only studied the first two weeks. As soon as week three begins, I SWEAR suddenly you will notice 100% decrease in body fat, 200% in lean mass, and you will grow two additional penises. I SWEAR guys, you just have to trust me!"

Haha, the low carbing has probably made him run on brain cells for fuel. Could explain his dodgy responses.

2 weeks? ahahaah, go to pubmed belaglazov and do a little searching. Chill out man, go eat some carbs. It'll get your blood glucose up.

Steve_W
06-06-2005, 11:17 PM
Yes this is true for the first couple weeks until fat adaptation takes place. The enzymes for fat have to grow. Few people know this and i found this out a long time ago. Like i siad carb loading will not get you there.

LMAO. Lipase does not have to grow. You already have lipase. How the hell can you digest fat then when you're not low carbing. You need to learn some basic physiology then I'd suggest you come and post back in this thread.

Steve_W
06-06-2005, 11:19 PM
So why haven't Lions and Tigers become extinct yet? All they eat is meat and they do fornicate.

Is this board related to lions and tigers?

alan aragon
06-07-2005, 12:06 AM
Im 5"9 205 and 10%.Whoa, 5 inches tall, 205 at such a low BF? Link us some pics for inspiration!! :D

LOL, on a serious note, there's some serious comedy going on in here. I'm with Steve & others here on this one. Low carbing is the way to go.. It's perfect for immobilized & bed-ridden patients.

sweetmisery
06-07-2005, 02:27 AM
This will really confuse a lot of noobies...

So ummmm... how much sugar do we need again? I know we can get those from dairy products like milk and fruits - fructose and all. So avoid refined sugar?

Am I correct?

WillWork4Muscle
06-07-2005, 04:01 AM
This will really confuse a lot of noobies...

So ummmm... how much sugar do we need again? I know we can get those from dairy products like milk and fruits - fructose and all. So avoid refined sugar?

Am I correct?

Your body will take care of your sugar needs from the foods you are eating. No, you do not need a sugar supplement:)
This is why when diabetics are getting low sugar they are told to eat something, not pop a sugarpack.

ratmonkey
06-07-2005, 12:17 PM
Your body will take care of your sugar needs from the foods you are eating. No, you do not need a sugar supplement:)
This is why when diabetics are getting low sugar they are told to eat something, not pop a sugarpack.

glucose tabs are a must to have around if you go hypo often. they've saved my ass a few times.

johnnyironboard
06-23-2005, 01:24 PM
Yet another baseless assertion...

www.calorieking.com

10 oz. of rolled oats = 1065 calories
16 oz. 85% lean ground beef = 1000 calories

LOL!! this idiot actually thinks that 10 oz of oats has more calories than 1 pound of beef!!

10 oz of carbs vs. 16 oz of protein and fat.

monkeydan
06-23-2005, 01:32 PM
Yo Carbs R Fine So Long As U Dont Eat Them After 7.00pm Bcuz Then They Liek Get Stoyed As Fat And Then U Wish That U Dint Eat Them Bacuz When U Wak Up Ur Liek 10lbs Hevier!!!111

Macros
06-23-2005, 02:08 PM
LOL!! this idiot actually thinks that 10 oz of oats has more calories than 1 pound of beef!!

10 oz of carbs vs. 16 oz of protein and fat.


density.

Cynical_Simian
06-23-2005, 03:08 PM
density.

Caloric density, specifically, since oats are less dense overall but more so in terms of calories per oz. Apparently johnny doesn't realize that the meat he eats as his sole source of nutrients (since carbs obviously aren't necessary :rolleyes: ) is juicy because of water, which (obviously, at least to most people) adds to the food's weight but not its calories.

johnnyironboard
06-23-2005, 05:40 PM
density.
From the label:

Oatmeal: 10 oz 700 calories or 70 calories per oz
ground beef extra lean 16 oz: 1173 calories 73.3125 calories per oz. pretty lean beef

johnnyironboard
06-23-2005, 05:48 PM
Caloric density, specifically, since oats are less dense overall but more so in terms of calories per oz. Apparently johnny doesn't realize that the meat he eats as his sole source of nutrients (since carbs obviously aren't necessary :rolleyes: ) is juicy because of water, which (obviously, at least to most people) adds to the food's weight but not its calories.

Hey idiot what weighs more a pound of lead or a pound of feathers? an ounce of oats weighs the same as an ounce of beef.

rockstarsar
06-23-2005, 06:09 PM
Hey idiot what weighs more a pound of lead or a pound of feathers? an ounce of oats weighs the same as an ounce of beef.

Your point?

16 oz of 90% lean ground beef, raw has 788 calories.
283.5g of raw oats (10 oz) has 1046 calories.

You don't seem to get that an ounce of oats is nearly all oats, because it has very little water content. An ounce of beef has lots of water.

Steve_W
06-23-2005, 07:44 PM
We have already established that johnny and belglavoz are uneducated cavemen. I'm sure they shower under waterfalls and go and hunt their own meat. So why is this thread re-bumped? Ratmonkey, backinthejox, rockstarsar, myself and even alan with a nice sarcastic comment have provided ownage for the lame arguement that carbs are not necessary. Why is this thread alive again?