Matt Lauer proving why no-sugar does't work
Replies
-
I don't assume that all people are like that. I do see many people stating that fruit isn't as good as sweets, so I know those people exist. I, personally, developed a much greater appreciation for the sweetness of fruit after I cut out its competitors.lemurcat12 wrote: »Why do you assume that people are unable to enjoy fruit or the like until they "change their palate"? The vast majority of people no doubt enjoy BOTH fruit and ice cream.
You're being a little quick with the assumptions about my assumptions.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »personally it is easier for me to give up sugar and use my calories for healthier options. i am not able to measure out 1/2 cup of ice cream and then leave it alone, if i eat sugar i crave more sugar. i have been eating Quest bars but i am starting to eat them too often so i don't plan on buying anymore for awhile. the last Quest bar that i ate had only 1 gram of sugar, plus 17g of fiber, and 21g of protein. i just try not to keep foods in the house that i over eat. i also try to get the most nutrition from my calories. i think you have to do what works for you and listen to your body. i admire those who can practice moderation!
This post is an example of why this debate happens. This person associates sugar as bad for them, on account of cravings. So she must avoid things like ice cream. But then proceeded to say she isn't buying any more Quest bars because she is eating them too often, despite the fact they only have 1g of sugar. It therefore seems reasonable to think that this person has a misguided fear of sugar.
No, it is completely unreasonable to think that. She clearly stated she tries to not keep foods in the house that she overeats...which is perfectly reasonable and taking personal responsibility. She mentioned sugar and ice cream. And then mentioned a low sugar item which she also avoids for the same reason...she eats too much of it. I don't know where you get the idea she is "afraid" of sugar. Perhaps you read a different post and replied to the wrong person?
No, I don't think so. It stands to reason. this person obviously is relating overeating to something else. Otherwise the nutrition information, including the sugar, wouldn't have been included.
If sugar routinely makes her overeat, she is relating sugar to overeating. She also relates Quest bars to overeating, and she has very clearly stated they do NOT have a lot of sugar. Thus, she she was pretty clear that ANY food she over eats she tried not to keep at home. She actually wrote these words..."i just try not to keep foods in the house that i over eat. "
This seems pretty simple to me.
Sugar doesn't MAKE her overeat. She chooses to overeat things that have sugar in them. Not keeping them in the house is a good choice for her.
However, she needs to learn how not to overeat. The fact that she now has a food that doesn't have a lot of sugar that she's overeating says a lot, doesn't it? when does she get to the point where she's not keeping any food in the house?
How is keeping food you overeat out of the house not a method of learning not to overeat? You can't overeat it if it's not there, right?
If your problem is so great that you can't keep any food in the house......? she's losing foods one at a time, what's next?
Maybe I missed it but I don't recall a post where someone said they couldn't keep any food in the house.
I do both...I moderate some foods...others I have eliminated. Those foods that I have eliminated I don't sit around and crave...rarely think about them. I found other foods to take their place...foods that I don't binge on.
Crackers are my weakness at present moment...I can moderate them for a day or two and then I can tell that they are becoming something that I will overeat on. So I don't buy them for a while until I am ready to try again.
I love peanut butter M&Ms...I have had one in over three years...they are a food that I would eat the whole bag in over the course of the day. I eliminated them...I don't crave them. If I brought them back in the house...I would binge eat them.
I don't consider myself a weak person because I chose to give them up. Nor do I think that I have to learn to moderate them to be successful in losing weight. If I never feel as if I can moderate them...then I am okay with giving them up.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. No one has to moderate everything. Nor do they have to eliminate everything. I tend to pick and choose my battles...some things are just not worth the battle to me...so I choose to walk away.
People need to find their own way of doing things. I certainly don't base my choices on what other do or think that I should do.
Someone giving up Quests bars because they have a tendency to eat to many might by a smart move. There are plenty of other foods out there to try and see if they might be better choices.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Why do you assume that people are unable to enjoy fruit or the like until they "change their palate"? The vast majority of people no doubt enjoy BOTH fruit and ice cream.
I think people are saying that you have to change your palate to enjoy candy LESS, and then fruit becomes to your taste buds more like a decadent dessert than a healthy snack.
My palate has changed and that in itself helps me moderate sweets. If a candy bar/ice cream/drink/dessert is too sweet for your tastes, you won't eat very much of it. I used to love Snickers bars. Now, if I have one (which is maybe once every few months), I have to share it. I still have chocolate, just less sweet varieties and in smaller amounts than before.
0 -
CJisinShape wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Why do you assume that people are unable to enjoy fruit or the like until they "change their palate"? The vast majority of people no doubt enjoy BOTH fruit and ice cream.
I think people are saying that you have to change your palate to enjoy candy LESS, and then fruit becomes to your taste buds more like a decadent dessert than a healthy snack.
Yes, I believe this is true. If you constantly crave sweets, changing your palate is a good way to combat it. And giving up added sugar is a good way to change your palate.0 -
Giving up added sugar is easy. Added sugar brings nothing to a person's diet, it has no nutritional benefit and, most of the time, it doesn't even taste that great. Once you give up sugar, you stop finding the taste of it enjoyable. Most things taste too sweet to me now.
I do agree, however, that there is no point eating 'replacement' foods for sugar. It's better to just quit than to prolong the agony. Once you get used to less sweet food, those sugary, sickly snacks will not seem appealing at all.
Quitting added sugar was one of the best things I ever did, after quitting smoking. The thought of going back to those sickly, syrupy coffees, eww!
A great book to read on the subject of quitting sugar is Pure, White and Deadly by John Yudkin.
0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You don't need fingernails either. So what? It doesn't mean we should form a no-fingernail group and use it as a launching pad to flood the forums with posts telling people they should try to live without fingernails.MoiAussi93 wrote: »You do not need carbs. At all. Zero. Now, I do eat carbs, but not because I would die if I didn't. I happen to like nuts and dairy too much to never eat carbs.
But if you wanted to it is very simple. Just east only foods with fat or protein. It's really not complicated.
Please show me where I recommended that people eat no carbs? I never did. ANd I haven't seen anyone else do it. All I did was correct a poster who insists on repeating...many times...that you NEED carbs to survive. You don't. I think it makes sense to correctly blatantly false information.0 -
maillemaker wrote: »3 Oreos is one serving, and 1/2 cup of ice cream is one serving. The mind set of moderation is learning to understand that when you eat something, you have one serving of it, and enjoy it. Would you rather have that one serving of it, or have none at all? I don't see what's wrong with having 3 cookies.
Usually, none at all. 3 cookies I'm just getting warmed up to the taste of cookies. It's too easy for 3 cookies to turn into 6. Typically if I "fit in" a treat, it's at the expense of a meal. Or I just go over on my calories for the day.It's also easier to practice moderation and work treats in when people have a moderate calorie deficit as opposed to an very high deficit. Although that's a topic that has been previously argued with you before to death, so I'm just going to leave it there.
I'm sure it is. But then you have to balance that lower deficit with less spectacular weight loss results, and for me anyway, it's the results that make the suffering worthwhile. Lackluster results and you start wondering why you are bothering with the suffering.That's a stupid saying because it's only applicable if all you care about is the next 5 minutes. It's not reasonable for the vast majority of people to expect to be able to avoid temptation for the rest of your life.
Or perhaps just the next 5 weeks or 5 months until you gain some confidence and stamina in controlling what you eat.In the long term it is easier to learn how to deal with these situations and "resistance" becomes much easier, and leads to a better quality of life.
Of course. But not everyone can do that right out of the blocks.Add to that the fact that "making the easy choice and only being concerned with about right now" is why a great many people are on MFP trying to lose a bunch of weight, and it's just plain silly to offer this short-sighted saying as a solution to the very problem it created.
If it works, it's not silly.
And you're still losing? Have you made it to goal weight successfully and maintained? Because you seem self-assured for someone who is still struggling with the journey. Do what you want, but if you're still struggling with weight loss and haven't figured it out yet, arguing with people who have successfully lost and maintained seems rather silly.
Stomp your feet and turn purple and insist you want to stay overweight, then.
That is an incredibly insulting and disrespectful post. You are basically saying somebody who is overweight has no right to an opinion. I have no tolerance for that type of behavior.0 -
I don't assume that all people are like that. I do see many people stating that fruit isn't as good as sweets, so I know those people exist. I, personally, developed a much greater appreciation for the sweetness of fruit after I cut out its competitors.lemurcat12 wrote: »Why do you assume that people are unable to enjoy fruit or the like until they "change their palate"? The vast majority of people no doubt enjoy BOTH fruit and ice cream.
You're being a little quick with the assumptions about my assumptions.
You might be right about my assumptions. I get annoyed (obviously) by the idea that fat people can't appreciate foods other than fat, salt, and sugar, as I had a perfectly decent palate even when fat, so tend to get overly sensitive in reacting to that idea when I perceive it. I apologize if I jumped too quickly. :-)0 -
CJisinShape wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Why do you assume that people are unable to enjoy fruit or the like until they "change their palate"? The vast majority of people no doubt enjoy BOTH fruit and ice cream.
I think people are saying that you have to change your palate to enjoy candy LESS, and then fruit becomes to your taste buds more like a decadent dessert than a healthy snack.
Some people might, but that's hardly universal.
I've never really liked "candy" and always loved many fruits, and that's not affected by the amount of sweets I eat.
I also could enjoy sweets (love a good apple crisp with vanilla ice cream, for example) and yet prefer coffee black (I've always hated sweetened coffee). This idea that liking some sweet things somehow biases your palate as to all things is just not necessarily true at all.
I'd be willing to bet that Matt Lauer might well enjoy some sugary foods and yet has a perfectly decent palate for lots of non sweet things.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »maillemaker wrote: »3 Oreos is one serving, and 1/2 cup of ice cream is one serving. The mind set of moderation is learning to understand that when you eat something, you have one serving of it, and enjoy it. Would you rather have that one serving of it, or have none at all? I don't see what's wrong with having 3 cookies.
Usually, none at all. 3 cookies I'm just getting warmed up to the taste of cookies. It's too easy for 3 cookies to turn into 6. Typically if I "fit in" a treat, it's at the expense of a meal. Or I just go over on my calories for the day.It's also easier to practice moderation and work treats in when people have a moderate calorie deficit as opposed to an very high deficit. Although that's a topic that has been previously argued with you before to death, so I'm just going to leave it there.
I'm sure it is. But then you have to balance that lower deficit with less spectacular weight loss results, and for me anyway, it's the results that make the suffering worthwhile. Lackluster results and you start wondering why you are bothering with the suffering.That's a stupid saying because it's only applicable if all you care about is the next 5 minutes. It's not reasonable for the vast majority of people to expect to be able to avoid temptation for the rest of your life.
Or perhaps just the next 5 weeks or 5 months until you gain some confidence and stamina in controlling what you eat.In the long term it is easier to learn how to deal with these situations and "resistance" becomes much easier, and leads to a better quality of life.
Of course. But not everyone can do that right out of the blocks.Add to that the fact that "making the easy choice and only being concerned with about right now" is why a great many people are on MFP trying to lose a bunch of weight, and it's just plain silly to offer this short-sighted saying as a solution to the very problem it created.
If it works, it's not silly.
And you're still losing? Have you made it to goal weight successfully and maintained? Because you seem self-assured for someone who is still struggling with the journey. Do what you want, but if you're still struggling with weight loss and haven't figured it out yet, arguing with people who have successfully lost and maintained seems rather silly.
Stomp your feet and turn purple and insist you want to stay overweight, then.
That is an incredibly insulting and disrespectful post. You are basically saying somebody who is overweight has no right to an opinion. I have no tolerance for that type of behavior.
I believe that if we want to learn how to succeed at this the first place that we should look is at those that have lost and maintained. However...
What we learn from them is not always applicable to ourselves. Not all successful people used the same methods. I think it is helpful to look at all of those methods.
My first time around on MFP I was successful at losing weight...until I wasn't. I lost 80lbs...gained more than half of it back before I said...it is time to get back to work. This time around is different for me though.
Before I was following the advice of many that had been successful. Problem was...I was changing methods...doing this...doing that. I stressed myself out. I just couldn't do it any longer.
This time however I am doing what works for me. Maybe many of these successful people would tell me I am doing it wrong in their opinion...oh well. All I know for the first time I truly feel that this is something that I can do even after going in to maintenance. Yes I eliminated some things...I moderated others. That works for me.
My only advice to people would be...find what works. Find a way that is healthy...makes you happy...and that you can do long term. If it ceases to work...then back up and try again.
0 -
My only advice to people would be...find what works. Find a way that is healthy...makes you happy...and that you can do long term. If it ceases to work...then back up and try again.
I think this is good advice.
It's worth noting that the poster mccindy was advising keeps saying that he CAN'T do moderation so he CAN'T eat foods he seems to want to eat and -- more significantly -- that he is only successful when hungry and miserable. I really don't think that's the only way; I think that's a choice, and that mccindy was trying to help.
I don't think that poster wants to hear there's another way, though. (And to my mind this has nothing to do with moderation or not, but the idea that dieting must mean misery.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »My only advice to people would be...find what works. Find a way that is healthy...makes you happy...and that you can do long term. If it ceases to work...then back up and try again.
I think this is good advice.
It's worth noting that the poster mccindy was advising keeps saying that he CAN'T do moderation so he CAN'T eat foods he seems to want to eat and -- more significantly -- that he is only successful when hungry and miserable. I really don't think that's the only way; I think that's a choice, and that mccindy was trying to help.
I don't think that poster wants to hear there's another way, though. (And to my mind this has nothing to do with moderation or not, but the idea that dieting must mean misery.)
^All of this.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »My only advice to people would be...find what works. Find a way that is healthy...makes you happy...and that you can do long term. If it ceases to work...then back up and try again.
I think this is good advice.
It's worth noting that the poster mccindy was advising keeps saying that he CAN'T do moderation so he CAN'T eat foods he seems to want to eat and -- more significantly -- that he is only successful when hungry and miserable. I really don't think that's the only way; I think that's a choice, and that mccindy was trying to help.
I don't think that poster wants to hear there's another way, though. (And to my mind this has nothing to do with moderation or not, but the idea that dieting must mean misery.)
I will say...I just skimmed his posts. What I got from that skimming differs somewhat.
I think what he was saying is that some people have not learned moderation yet and that until they do maybe it is best to eliminate certain foods.
Personally I think there is a lot that most people need to learn about nutrition and weight management. I certainly did and have spent a lot of time researching. I think that has made the biggest difference for me.
Trying to get your weight under control is difficult...at least initially. People struggle...what to eat...how much to eat. Trying to find ways to keep binges down yet not being hungry. Also I think realizing what are those trigger foods that set off the binging. There are macro/micro goals...fitness goals...health goals...etc...etc. It can become overwhelming at times...at least it did for me. If there are health issues that just adds to the confusion and frustration.
So IMO...sometimes you have to chose your battles...do I learn to moderate those PB M&Ms...or do I put my attention on to more important things. I pick and choose my battles...those PB M&Ms came out at the bottom of the list.
I understand what that poster was trying to say (if what I got from his post is correct). Sometimes it is just easier to eliminate than to have to battle trying to moderate. Later when you have more control then you can possibly reintroduce foods if you choose.
I might be wrong though...maybe he does want to miserable...IDK.
0 -
Please show me where I said you recommended that people eat no carbs? I never did.MoiAussi93 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You don't need fingernails either. So what? It doesn't mean we should form a no-fingernail group and use it as a launching pad to flood the forums with posts telling people they should try to live without fingernails.MoiAussi93 wrote: »You do not need carbs. At all. Zero. Now, I do eat carbs, but not because I would die if I didn't. I happen to like nuts and dairy too much to never eat carbs.
But if you wanted to it is very simple. Just east only foods with fat or protein. It's really not complicated.
Please show me where I recommended that people eat no carbs? I never did.
Then your correcting someone is entirely irrelevant and serves no purpose in this thread. How is that different from correcting someone's grammar?ANd I haven't seen anyone else do it. All I did was correct a poster who insists on repeating...many times...that you NEED carbs to survive. You don't. I think it makes sense to correctly blatantly false information.0 -
And BTW you do need carbs to survive. If you lowered your blood glucose too much, you would go into a coma and die.0
-
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »And BTW you do need carbs to survive. If you lowered your blood glucose too much, you would go into a coma and die.
You don't need dietary carbs. Amino acids can be used to generate glucose within the body via gluconeogenesis.
http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/gluconeogenesis.php
0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
Please show me where I said you recommended that people eat no carbs? I never did.MoiAussi93 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You don't need fingernails either. So what? It doesn't mean we should form a no-fingernail group and use it as a launching pad to flood the forums with posts telling people they should try to live without fingernails.MoiAussi93 wrote: »You do not need carbs. At all. Zero. Now, I do eat carbs, but not because I would die if I didn't. I happen to like nuts and dairy too much to never eat carbs.
But if you wanted to it is very simple. Just east only foods with fat or protein. It's really not complicated.
Please show me where I recommended that people eat no carbs? I never did.
Then your correcting someone is entirely irrelevant and serves no purpose in this thread. How is that different from correcting someone's grammar?ANd I haven't seen anyone else do it. All I did was correct a poster who insists on repeating...many times...that you NEED carbs to survive. You don't. I think it makes sense to correctly blatantly false information.
Serves no purpose? Uh...you are very much mistaken. If somebody told posters, repeatedly, that you CANNOT lose weight without exercising one hour every day, they would immediately be corrected. Because that is wrong. And saying you need carbs to live is also wrong. And MUST be corrected. This is not at all like correcting grammar. smh0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »And BTW you do need carbs to survive. If you lowered your blood glucose too much, you would go into a coma and die.
No, for the 100th time you DO NOT NEED CARBS TO SURVIVE. I have said it. So have half a dozen other people. Some have even given links. Carbs are not necessary to the human body.0 -
Hold on a second....gluconeogensis cannot fill all the body's glucose requirements, even in the presence of essentially unlimited protein intake.
If by "carbs aren't necessary" you mean "you won't die for a while", then fair game. But if it's supposed to mean "leads to an energetic, full lifestyle", the answer is yes, carbs *are* biologically necessary.
Depending on individual and context, the level can be pretty low (some folks can manage on <50g /day more or less indefinitely, and virtually everyone's needs are covered by 100g/day), but going literally zero carb is going to cause problems if done for very long.0 -
Your blood glucose level is not zero. If it were you would be dead.MoiAussi93 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »And BTW you do need carbs to survive. If you lowered your blood glucose too much, you would go into a coma and die.
No, for the 100th time you DO NOT NEED CARBS TO SURVIVE. I have said it. So have half a dozen other people. Some have even given links. Carbs are not necessary to the human body.0 -
Hold on a second....gluconeogensis cannot fill all the body's glucose requirements, even in the presence of essentially unlimited protein intake.
If by "carbs aren't necessary" you mean "you won't die for a while", then fair game. But if it's supposed to mean "leads to an energetic, full lifestyle", the answer is yes, carbs *are* biologically necessary.
Depending on individual and context, the level can be pretty low (some folks can manage on <50g /day more or less indefinitely, and virtually everyone's needs are covered by 100g/day), but going literally zero carb is going to cause problems if done for very long.
The body actually needs very little glucose. It can use fat as a primary fuel source instead of carbs in which case the glucose needs are very low and gluconeogenesis can easily fill them.
So no, carbs are not needed for an energetic full lifestyle.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »Hold on a second....gluconeogensis cannot fill all the body's glucose requirements, even in the presence of essentially unlimited protein intake.
If by "carbs aren't necessary" you mean "you won't die for a while", then fair game. But if it's supposed to mean "leads to an energetic, full lifestyle", the answer is yes, carbs *are* biologically necessary.
Depending on individual and context, the level can be pretty low (some folks can manage on <50g /day more or less indefinitely, and virtually everyone's needs are covered by 100g/day), but going literally zero carb is going to cause problems if done for very long.
The body actually needs very little glucose.
For someone extremely sedentary, that's not far from reality.
For someone even moderately active, it's not, because carb intake is the only metabolically feasible way to restore gylcogen stores. Once those are gone, they're gone, and they cannot be synthesized in sufficient quantities, quickly enough, from either protein or fat pathways.It can use fat as a primary fuel source instead of carbs in which case the glucose needs are very low and gluconeogenesis can easily fill them. So no, carbs are not needed for an energetic full lifestyle.
Yes, they are, because it's not just about the calories, it's about the rate of caloric burn. There are fundamental biological reasons for the complete lack of elite ketogenic athletes at any sport that requires more than low intensity output.0 -
You can totally give it up, added sugar isn't needed. Don't eat replacements, you just have to let it go and find something else to satisfy you.0
-
The Inuit diet does include some vegetable matter though, and thereby carbohydrate. Almost all the plants on the tundra are edible, though some of it isn't tasty or nutritious. So, sorry--they do eat carbs.0
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »Hold on a second....gluconeogensis cannot fill all the body's glucose requirements, even in the presence of essentially unlimited protein intake.
If by "carbs aren't necessary" you mean "you won't die for a while", then fair game. But if it's supposed to mean "leads to an energetic, full lifestyle", the answer is yes, carbs *are* biologically necessary.
Depending on individual and context, the level can be pretty low (some folks can manage on <50g /day more or less indefinitely, and virtually everyone's needs are covered by 100g/day), but going literally zero carb is going to cause problems if done for very long.
The body actually needs very little glucose.
For someone extremely sedentary, that's not far from reality.
For someone even moderately active, it's not, because carb intake is the only metabolically feasible way to restore gylcogen stores. Once those are gone, they're gone, and they cannot be synthesized in sufficient quantities, quickly enough, from either protein or fat pathways.It can use fat as a primary fuel source instead of carbs in which case the glucose needs are very low and gluconeogenesis can easily fill them. So no, carbs are not needed for an energetic full lifestyle.
Yes, they are, because it's not just about the calories, it's about the rate of caloric burn. There are fundamental biological reasons for the complete lack of elite ketogenic athletes at any sport that requires more than low intensity output.
Ketogenic athletes run marathons. So if people can run marathons in ketosis, I think the vast majority of the population can handle normal daily activities including a workout that probably doesn't exceed an hour and is not as intense as a marathon.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »Hold on a second....gluconeogensis cannot fill all the body's glucose requirements, even in the presence of essentially unlimited protein intake.
If by "carbs aren't necessary" you mean "you won't die for a while", then fair game. But if it's supposed to mean "leads to an energetic, full lifestyle", the answer is yes, carbs *are* biologically necessary.
Depending on individual and context, the level can be pretty low (some folks can manage on <50g /day more or less indefinitely, and virtually everyone's needs are covered by 100g/day), but going literally zero carb is going to cause problems if done for very long.
The body actually needs very little glucose.
For someone extremely sedentary, that's not far from reality.
For someone even moderately active, it's not, because carb intake is the only metabolically feasible way to restore gylcogen stores. Once those are gone, they're gone, and they cannot be synthesized in sufficient quantities, quickly enough, from either protein or fat pathways.It can use fat as a primary fuel source instead of carbs in which case the glucose needs are very low and gluconeogenesis can easily fill them. So no, carbs are not needed for an energetic full lifestyle.
Yes, they are, because it's not just about the calories, it's about the rate of caloric burn. There are fundamental biological reasons for the complete lack of elite ketogenic athletes at any sport that requires more than low intensity output.
Ketogenic athletes run marathons.
None of the good ones are ketogenic.
And ketogenic is not the same as no-carb.I think the vast majority of the population can handle normal daily activities including a workout that probably doesn't exceed an hour and is not as intense as a marathon.
That's exactly backwards - shorter duration workouts typically have higher intensity levels than longer workouts - thereby increasing the need for carb replenishment. Usain Bolt is running at a MUCH higher intensity than his champion equivalent at marathon distances.
The one place where we might expect to see a genuine full time ketogenic champion is in ultra-distance racing.0 -
Ketosis is a normal state that thin people go into short-term overnight while they sleep because of the length of time between meals.0
-
Hold on a second....gluconeogensis cannot fill all the body's glucose requirements, even in the presence of essentially unlimited protein intake.
If by "carbs aren't necessary" you mean "you won't die for a while", then fair game. But if it's supposed to mean "leads to an energetic, full lifestyle", the answer is yes, carbs *are* biologically necessary.
Depending on individual and context, the level can be pretty low (some folks can manage on <50g /day more or less indefinitely, and virtually everyone's needs are covered by 100g/day), but going literally zero carb is going to cause problems if done for very long.
Not sure if it's me you were replying to, but I was only saying that you won't "go into a coma and die" from lack of dietary carbs, assuming you are healthy and have no special conditions that prevent gluconeogenesis.
Personally I feel like crap without carbs, so I eat 45-55% of my calories as carbs, often more. I was only replying to a poster who said that without dietary carbs, blood sugar levels would collapse and cause coma and death, which isn't the case.0 -
Ketosis is a normal state that thin people go into short-term overnight while they sleep because of the length of time between meals.
That's only correct under very specific conditions, rarely seen conditions.
Under normal conditions, "thin people" are running off of glucose released by the liver during sleep time.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »Hold on a second....gluconeogensis cannot fill all the body's glucose requirements, even in the presence of essentially unlimited protein intake.
If by "carbs aren't necessary" you mean "you won't die for a while", then fair game. But if it's supposed to mean "leads to an energetic, full lifestyle", the answer is yes, carbs *are* biologically necessary.
Depending on individual and context, the level can be pretty low (some folks can manage on <50g /day more or less indefinitely, and virtually everyone's needs are covered by 100g/day), but going literally zero carb is going to cause problems if done for very long.
The body actually needs very little glucose.
For someone extremely sedentary, that's not far from reality.
For someone even moderately active, it's not, because carb intake is the only metabolically feasible way to restore gylcogen stores. Once those are gone, they're gone, and they cannot be synthesized in sufficient quantities, quickly enough, from either protein or fat pathways.It can use fat as a primary fuel source instead of carbs in which case the glucose needs are very low and gluconeogenesis can easily fill them. So no, carbs are not needed for an energetic full lifestyle.
Yes, they are, because it's not just about the calories, it's about the rate of caloric burn. There are fundamental biological reasons for the complete lack of elite ketogenic athletes at any sport that requires more than low intensity output.
Ketogenic athletes run marathons.
None of the good ones are ketogenic.
And ketogenic is not the same as no-carb.I think the vast majority of the population can handle normal daily activities including a workout that probably doesn't exceed an hour and is not as intense as a marathon.
That's exactly backwards - shorter duration workouts typically have higher intensity levels than longer workouts - thereby increasing the need for carb replenishment. Usain Bolt is running at a MUCH higher intensity than his champion equivalent at marathon distances.
The one place where we might expect to see a genuine full time ketogenic champion is in ultra-distance racing.
I'm no basketball expert, but Lebron James & Ray Allen are generally considered "good".0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions