Quote:
Originally Posted by thegreatone
OK now from reading the chapter I see that macro ratio really had no impact on weight or fat loss energy balance seems to the key but has there been any studies done to determine what macro ratio offers the greatest health benefits? I eat low CHO just because I feel better while do so but is there any benefit to low CHO other than controling insulin level? If more CHO leads to better health I will increase my intake to the level necessary to obtain the greatest health bebefits.
|
You'd need to define "better health" or "greatest health benefits" first. But, don't bother, because it's going to be all over place for different people.
Even with that, it's not likely that it was the macro ratio that had the bearing, it's what foods were eaten to come up with that ratio (which I'm assuming would have quite a variance, anyway).
While it's not an exact science, it's likely that the foods that are the most similar to the ones that man has been eating for 10s of thousands of years are the most "healthful." At least if you believe in the caveman.
Meat, etc. -- Particularly either lean meat or fatty meats that are grass fed, although most fatty meat is still fine, provided you get your omega-3s from somewhere and watch your 6s, elsewhere.
Seeds and nuts -- I prefer dry roasted with salt. Purists say raw and unsalted. What's wrong with cooking? I've never heard...
Veggies and fruit -- you can argue about how different some are and that our ancestors didn't have big ol' apples like today. Big whoop. Big ol' juicy fruits might have more calories, but they're still healthful.
Those are probably the basics. You can nitpick the specifics.
Then there are things on the less healthful spectrum. Certainly you can argue that you can be healthy with these foods in your diet, but would you be even healthier (albeit miserable) without some of them. Or just having a lot less of them?
Things like grains and legumes were eaten is such tiny amounts, so you could do that, as well. Certainly whole versions, not refined.
Bad fats, like soybean and corn oil.
Dairy was probably pretty rare. You can argue if it's good or bad. I think it's good, but I don't think NOT having it would be a problem for anyone. Plenty of other sources for the dairy based nutrients.
Sugar, except from fruit was almost non-existent. Fruits had less sugar, too. Honey was rare.
Starchy vegetables "require" cooking, typically. They were probably rare. They can be eaten raw, but how tasty is a raw turnip? Sweet corn is a new invention. Even starchy corn is pretty new. Corn is a grain, and our ancestors saw corn crowing as stalks of grain, like enlarged wheat. A last straw before starving, probably.
I'm sure I'm forgetting something, but if you imagine eating like this, you come up with a range of macros in which the "healthiest" people live. But, it's the foods they eat and don't eat, right? The macro is a result of the food selection.