Paul Saladino· MD
there is no way to get that many carbohydrates without stuffing yourself full of grains and other processed carbohydrates and at the exclusion of more nutrient dense meat and organs
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
there is no way to get that many carbohydrates without stuffing yourself full of grains and other processed carbohydrates and at the exclusion of more nutrient dense meat and organs
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
technically speaking i actually don't know how anyone could get 40 of their calories from carbohydrates unless you were eating foods that i don't consider to be that great for humans grains predominantly and you would have to eat so many grains that you would be excluding protein sources that i find valuable this would be meat and organs for for you know for humans
as many of you know if you watch the video about how i eat now i do include fruit and honey in my diet and i still eat a very low carbohydrate excuse me i still eat a low carbohydrate diet according to the traditional definition because much fewer than 40 of my calories are coming from carbohydrates