The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Scientific Proof Carbohydrates Cause Disease

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 413 times Debate No: 81503
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)




Akhenaten in another debate has cited that a mercola article that claims carbohydrates cause disease.

"Carbohydrates cause nearly all age-related diseases." Kent Rieske

I Con will argue that the hypothesis that Carbohydrates cause disease is false.

Akhenaten Pro will reinforce the hypothesis that Carboyhdrates indeed cause disease.

Let's first look at

" But the BlockShopper Chicago Web site states that in 2006 he purchased a house in South Barrington, Illinois, for $2 million and that it now has 5,563 square feet."

Its pretty clear to me that James Mercola is a quack. By promoting Mercola, you are practicing quackery.

"Quackery is the promotion of an unproven product or service. The operant word is promotion rather than intent. (Quacks quack!)"

Quack Quack Quack you are promoting an unproven product or service Akhenaten.

Let's see what says about vegetarian. "Vegetarianism: Healthful but Unnecessary"

In other words vegetarian is healthful, good luck being a vegetarian on a low carb diet. :)

"The popularity of low-carbohydrate diets has encouraged food companies to market low-carbohydrate foods for people who want to "watch their carbs." Most of these foods are much higher in fat than the foods they are designed to replace. I believe that "low-carb" advertising is encouraging both dieters and nondieters to eat high-fat foods, which is exactly the opposite of what medical and nutrition authorities have been urging for decades. Following a low-carbohydrate diet under medical supervision may make sense for some people, but a population-wide increase in fat consumption would not. My advice to people who are considering a low-carbohydrate diet is not to try it on their own by reading a book, but to seek supervision from a physician who can monitor what they do. "

You seem to bent on germs theory. As you probably already know germ theory and vaccinations are closely linked.

"Immunizations should be part of routine health care obtained through one's personal physician (or in some instances, through one's local health department). Long-lasting protection is available against measles, mumps, German measles (rubella), poliomyelitis, tetanus (lockjaw), whooping cough (pertussis), diphtheria, chickenpox (varicella), Hemophilus influenzae b (Hib), and hepatitis B. Immunization against all of these is recommended for children by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Practice, and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."

You seem intent on spreading your quackery, and I intend on stopping it.


Just because a website is called 'Quack Watch', doesn't necessarily follow that they are there to stop fraudulent medical practises. We have to consider that the possible purpose of 'Quack Watch' may be to protect an already corrupt medical system from cheap and effective natural cures which might undermine expensive and patented medicines.

The medical/pharmacy system is a multi-billion dollar system which has influence on governments, doctors and universities. They need to protect their financial investments from cheap or free products which may replace expensive patented products. They will do almost anything to stop the public from finding out about the many deceptions that they have employed over the last 200 years or so.

Their biggest deception being 'germ theory' and the related hidden knowledge that disease is really caused by an unnatural diet and has nothing to do with external germs invading the body.

The Late Role of Grains and Legumes
in the Human Diet, and Biochemical Evidence
of their Evolutionary Discordance

by Loren Cordain, Ph.D.

Repercussions of antinutrient load. As has been suggested by John Yudkin almost 30 years ago, cereal grains are a relatively recent food for hominids and our physiologies are still adjusting and adapting to their presence. Clearly, no human can live on a diet composed entirely of cereal grains (for one thing they have no vitamin C). However, that is but one consideration, since eating raw cereal grains (as well as cooked cereal grains) wreaks havoc on the primate gut because of the high antinutrient content of grains. When cereal grain calories reach 50% or more of the daily caloric intake, humans suffer severe health consequences. One has to look no further than the severe pellagra epidemics of the late 19th century in America and the beri-beri scourges of southeast Asia to confirm this.
Additionally, in not only human beings, but in virtually every animal model studied (dog, rat, guinea pig, baboon, etc.), high cereal grain consumption promotes and induces rickets and osteomalacia [Robertson 1981; Ewer 1950; Sly 1984; Ford 1972, 1977; MacAuliffe 1976; Hidiroglou 1980; Dagnelie 1990]. Recent research has also implicated zinc deficiency due to the effects of excessive cereal grain consumption in retarding skeletal growth [Reinhold 1971; Halsted 1972; Sandstrom 1987; Golub 1996], including cases of hypogonadal dwarfism seen in modern-day Iran.

The pathologies introduced by higher levels of cereal grain consumption discussed above are due primarily to the effects of phytates in grains, which bind to minerals, preventing adequate uptake. To this point, we haven't even touched upon the other antinutrients which inflict damage on a wide variety of human physiological systems. These antinutrients include protease inhibitors, alkylrescorcinols, alpha-amylase inhitors, molecular-mimicking proteins, etc. We will look further at these additional problems below. Clearly, however, cereal grains cannot contribute substantial calories to the diet of primates unless they are cooked and processed.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you again for accepting the challenge.

Let's go through the evidence and see what is stated.

"A diet high in carbohydrates may increase the risk of pancreatic cancer in sedentary and overweight women," BMJ 2002;325:566

That could be any carbohydrate. Soft drinks comes to mind. Just because one source of carbohydrates causes disease doesn't mean another does. It's common knowledge that fruits and vegetables are healthy and soda isn't. A condemnation of soda is not the same as a condemnation of fruits and vegetables.

"Fasting DNL was measured after a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet in normoinsulinemic lean (n = 5) and hyperinsulinemic obese (n = 5) subjects." Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan;77(1):43-50.

Again, high-carbohydrate diet could be an all soda diet. Yes, scientific peer reviewed sources are used, but carbohydrates may not be the culprit.

"Diet is clearly implicated in the origin of colorectal cancer, with risk factors for the disease including reduced consumption of vegetables, fiber, and starch and increased consumption of red meat and animal fat. Nutr Cancer. 2000;37(1):19-26.

This serves to help falsify the hypothesis rather than reinforce. Now lets look at the effects of detrimental health effects of soda.

"We found clear associations of soft drink intake with increased energy intake and body weight." Am J Public Health. 2007 April; 97(4): 667"675. doi:" 10.2105/AJPH.2005.083782

"Meanwhile, the evidence continues to mount that sugar-sweetened drinks are a major contributor to obesity, heart disease and diabetes, and that exercise makes only a modest contribution to weight loss compared to ingesting fewer calories."

Next, the health benefits of antioxidants, fiber, and vegetarian respectively.

"It appears that carotenoids (including beta-carotene) can promote health when taken at dietary levels, but may have adverse effects when taken in high dose by subjects who smoke or who have been exposed to asbestos. " J Am Coll Nutr. 1999 Oct;18(5):426-33.

"Suffering from diarrhea? Conventional wisdom says choose foods high in fiber. Constipated? Eat a high-fiber diet, experts suggest." Peter Jaret

"Cytotoxic activity, which is expressed as lytic units, was significantly higher in vegetarians than in their omnivorous controls by a factor of 2." Nutr Cancer. 1989;12(3):271-8.

It is clear to me the hypothesis that carbohydrates causes disease is false. Instead I argue that excess soda consumption causes disease. Also good luck finding beta-carotene in animals meats. Beta-carotene doesn't work so well when taken in supplement form. I added some extra references which help falsify the hypothesis that carbohydrates cause disease. In fact, I argue that a diet high in vegetables and fruit which tend to contain how amounts of carbohydrates, anti-oxidants, and fiber helps prevent disease.

Mercola's references:

Soda references:

Antioxidants references:

Fiber references:

Vegetarian references:


1. It appears that you don't understand the basic principles of debate. You are supposed to address my statements, point by point. Giving your reasons for disagreeing with each point and offering alternatives to these ideas. You have done none of these things, thus far. The statements of Doctor Loren Cordain remain unchallenged, and thus, still stand.

2. quote - "A diet high in carbohydrates may increase the risk of pancreatic cancer in sedentary and overweight women," BMJ 2002;325:566"

Thanks for posting this reference, it adds credibility to my case. lol

Soda is not a carbohydrate unless you put sugar into it. Soda is only unhealthy because it has sugar in it. Thus, it is the carbohydrate element of soda that is unhealthy.

Quote - "Diet is clearly implicated in the origin of colorectal cancer, with risk factors for the disease including reduced consumption of vegetables, fiber, and starch and increased consumption of red meat and animal fat. Nutr Cancer. 2000;37(1):19-26."

Doesn't state the quantities of fibre, vegetables, red meat and fat. Thus, the information is useless.
Of course a diet low in fibre and vitamins will result in cancer.

Carbohydrates come in 3 basic types -

1. Simple carbohydrates - fructose, glucose, honey etc

2. Complex carbohydrates - rice and wheat

3. Complex fibrous carbohydrates - most vegetables

The first 2 categories will make you sick if eaten in a highly processed variety. A diet of 50% or more of these carbohydrates will definitely lead to disease.
The 3rd category is harmless and wont affect your health in a bad way, but will add vitamins and make you feel better.
Debate Round No. 2


I spent a lot of time on that last article. My sources are scholarly peer reviewed, so I am winning based upon superior sources cited. As for soda you rationalize that soda is unhealthy because of carbohydrates. Yet, you must know that diet soda has very little carbohydrates. Yet, the detrimental health effects are still present. Meaning the carbohydrates are not the cause of the disease.

"It saves you the 140-plus calories you'd find in a sugary soft drink while still satisfying your urge for something sweet with artificial sweeteners like aspartame, saccharin, and sucralose."

"Researchers from the University of Texas found that over the course of about a decade, diet soda drinkers had a 70% greater increase in waist circumference compared with non-drinkers."

"Granted, the evidence of health risks is a lot clearer for sugary drinks; a recent study presented at a meeting of the American Heart Association linked them with 180,000 deaths around the world."

"Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota" Nature 514, 181"186 (09 October 2014) doi:10.1038/nature13793

The probiotic video is boring in my opinion yet diet soda is mentioned as destroying the health gut bacteria. I contend that soda is detrimental to health because of the artificial sweeteners.

Another problem with soda is the liquid form. Assuming Darwin's theory of evolution. What evolutionary base can we have for packing so many calories into a liquid? Wild chimpanzees eat honey, so there would be some ability. Yet, honey wouldn't be available on a daily basis.

Evolution and natural selection prepared us for eating fruits and leafy greens just like wild chimpanzees and bonobo monkey. The idea that man suddenly evolved to eat lots of cooked meat is inconsistent with the theory of evolution. Perhaps man evolved to eat small quantity of cooked meat. As a scavenger primitive humans could have picked up washed up sea life in coastal regions.

The idea of man evolving to eat a large herbivore like a cow makes no sense. Not only would a herd of wild cows be dangerous but it would be feast or famine. Instead cooked tubers make sense as seen in the below nytimes article.


1. You still haven't responded to my previous articles despite giving warnings of this omission. Thus, the statement in regards to Doctor Loren Cordain still remains unchallenged.

2. Soda drinkers are generally unhealthy people and would have lots of bad dietary habits which would lead to obesity.

3. Aspartame is a poisonous substance which can damage brain tissue. As a result of its unnatural structure, your body processes the amino acids found in aspartame very differently from a steak or a piece of fish. The amino acids in aspartame literally attack your cells, even crossing the blood-brain barrier to attack your brain cells, creating a toxic cellular overstimulation called excitotoxicity. MSG is also an excitotoxin, and works synergistically with aspartame to create even more damage to your brain cells.
Aspartic acid, also known as aspartate, acts as a neurotransmitter in your brain by facilitating the transmission of information from neuron to neuron. Too much aspartate in your brain kills certain neurons by allowing the influx of too much calcium into the cells. This influx triggers excessive amounts of free radicals, which kill the cells. The neural cell damage that can be caused by excessive aspartate is why they are referred to as "excitotoxins." They "excite" or stimulate the neural cells to death.

4. Humans have evolved an external stomach which is called a cooking pot. Thus, eating cooked food is part of our evolved solution to reducing body weight which allows us extra leisure and hunting time.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Akhenaten 11 months ago
The inquisition is over! By order of the royal inquisitor.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
Yes, because I should trust that the background you purport to have is the one you actually have, and that you can somehow spot something in my actions that makes me a corrupt person. Of course. Well, if you're no longer willing to defend the vote, then I'm not willing to continue this conversation. It was removed, as it shall remain. If the voter wishes the re-post with more details, he can contact me. If not, then this is where the discussion ends completely.
Posted by Akhenaten 11 months ago
I have worked for several years in a government department, where I witnessed corruption, deception and skulduggery on a daily basis. You may fool the average person, but not me! lol
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
Yeah, but in all of your assertions that I might be biased, you haven't addressed the clear problems with the vote.
Posted by Akhenaten 11 months ago
i have spent a lot of time in court rooms, so I am aware of how judges can be biased.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
It comes down to what standard of voting members of the site want and don't want, hence this conversation. The reality is that there's a very clear set of standards for what must be in a vote. There's some subjectivity involved in our evaluations, but this was just an objectively bad vote without any of the basic reasoning required. Whether or not you feel that I'm justified in my enforcement of the standards, this vote clearly didn't meet them, and I can't think of any stretch of the imagination that could lead to thinking otherwise.
Posted by Akhenaten 11 months ago
It comes down to the age old problem of who is going to guard the guards! lol
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
First, your assessment of the debate isn't necessarily the correct one - you are rather biased on that end.

Second, the voter didn't say those things about Stupidape's arguments. It's up to the voter to explain their decision, not you.

Third, it doesn't matter if the voter stated a fact. The voter has a duty to provide enough feedback to make their decision clear, and without ever explaining why he discounted all of Stupidape's arguments, he's clearly failed to do so.

Fourth, this isn't a courtroom, but if it was, the judge would still be required to state that it is a point of a disorder and actually have the reason written down. This voter has failed to do either of those things.

Fifth, this isn't a courtroom. It's a debate. There are expectations of the voters. This voter didn't meet those expectations. You haven't stated in any way how he did meet them, instead you're just arguing that the decision is so obvious that there's no reason for him to explain it. Well, that's not how this works. Obviousness may work in your favor when people vote, but it's not a reason for a voter to ignore their basic duties.
Posted by Akhenaten 11 months ago
You didn't address the fact that Stupidape rarely addresses the issues and just babbles on endlessly. The voter was just stating a fact. If the fact was incorrect, then, you would be justified in discounting it. But, unfortunately, because Stupidape doesn't address issues and is very evasive, then, this should be considered a point of disorder. If this was a courtroom situation, Stupidape would be charged with 'contempt of court'. Thus, the vote should still stand.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
...Alright, let's address this.

1) I'm not being rude. I'm pointing to the vote, stating what information it objectively provides, and explaining how that's insufficient. I'm not assuming that the voter didn't read the debate, just stating that their assessment was lacking.

2) Moderation is not here to handhold. It already takes much of my night every night to go through the votes and assess them. If that process also involved contacting voters with concerns, waiting for a response, and continually working with them to fix it, this would be impossibly long. It's not realistic, nor is it reasonable considering that this position is entirely volunteer.

3) The voter still has 5 days to rework his vote. I've given him feedback, and if he wants more, he can contact me about it. If he's as engaged in the process of voting as you seem to assume, then he should be more than willing to show that he read the debate by expanding on his vote. Right now, though, you seem more interested in it than he is.

4) Moderation is not democratic. I was not elected. I am more than willing to engage in a discussion of the issues that surround voting standards, but for the time being, they've been established and are quite clear. All I'm here to do is enforce them. DDO voting is held to a basic standard in order to ensure that debaters who spend a great deal of time and energy on their debates don't get cheated by a flippant vote. It's fine if you don't like that, but don't get all high and mighty with me. There are many clear reasons why the standards exist, and I don't think it's at all reasonable to ignore votes like this or treat them as just as good as any other.
No votes have been placed for this debate.