Could you spend a day without any sugar?
Replies
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »<snip>there wouldn't be much quality potty time going on without them! Tons of meat and cheese! Just thinking about the constipation makes me cringe.
One of the advantages of low carb is fewer BMs. They still happen and with no problem, they just don't happen as often. Constipation usually means dehydration, which applies to regular diets too.
By the by, most low carb people do eat veggies. It's the higher carb ones that are avoided or at least rationed. Low carb doesn't always mean zero veggies. It can, but it doesn't have to. Hubby is in keto. For lunch, he's eating 350g of chicken meat, 125g of mushrooms, and 320g of veggies. He ate veggies for breakfast and he'll have them for dinner too.
there have already been comments here about how they are really not necessary nor have they proven to have any health benefits, etc...this kind of dogma goes on a lot around here it seems...
Those comments were made in response to someone else saying that eating no veggies wouldn't be good for you, which was made in response to someone else stating that no one will suffer ill health without sugar (not veggies). Does anyone know of a study showing that people who do not consume fruits and/or veggies experience adverse health effects, even in cases where the person is able to get the nutrients from an alternative source?
really? i'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that most people who aren't eating their veg and fruit are pretty deficient nutrient wise and would thus suffer adverse consequences. the vast majority of the population doesn't know jack about actual nutrition nor do most new users to MFP...so i think suggesting that vegetables and whatnot aren't necessary to a healthy diet is somewhat disturbing....but hey...that's just me...carry on.
If you're claiming that what someone said is wrong and that people are going to suffer adverse consequences even in cases where they are getting those same nutrients from other sources, I'd like to see a study backing up that claim. Anecdotally, I know several people who do not include fruits and veggies as a staple in their diets and who have no adverse health issues or are nutrient-deficient, so I'm interested to see the research supporting your claim that these are necessary for a healthy diet.
yea, that poster clearly said if they were not getting their nutrients there would be adverse health affects. He never made reference to alternate sources...so not really sure where you are going with this.
The people being accused of low carb/keto dogma have very clearly stated in this thread that veggies are not necessary and the nutrients can be obtained from other sources, so I'm left wondering where others who are stating people will be nutrient deficient without veggies are going with their statements. It's right here:lemurcat12 wrote: »
Maybe it makes them feel bad? Maybe they like to experiment? Sugar is fun to eat, but no one will suffer ill health without it.
Eating no veggies isn't good for you. Yeah, there are ways to make up the micronutrients (although I suspect they aren't as good), but the vast majority of people who mostly cut out veggies don't actually eat lots of organ meats and the like. (And the traditional Inuit diet, while not keto, doesn't compete with the blue zone diets anyway.)
So claiming eating no veggies is perfectly healthy seems inaccurate.
EVERY nutrient in vegetables is available elsewhere, vegetables are not the only easy source of life sustaining nutrients. Eating no veggies is not bad for you, you just need to increase familiarity of nutrient content of other food sources to make it easy and healthy.
It seems like the veggie argument goalpost is being moved all over the place in this discussion. The low carb people are saying that sugar, including the sugar in fruit or veggies, is not necessary for good health because the body can produce its own. No one is saying the nutrients are unnecessary, they are just stating that they can be obtained from other sources.
Unless someone has a study that can prove that fruits and veggies are absolutely necessary to a healthy diet and that people who do not eat fruits and veggies, even if obtaining nutrients from alternative sources, will suffer adverse health effects, then it seems this discussion is more about people's personal food preferences than the necessity of certain foods being included in a diet based on science.
Well given this:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01635589209514201
Says fruits and vegetable consumption, particularly fruit, reduces cancer risk, and other studies have shown no reduction in cancer from supplements (study I heard mentioned by Harvard nutrition, so I don't have it handy), I'd say there is something in fruit but not in supplements that has cancer preventative properties. Does increased risk of cancer qualify as adverse health effects?
Eating more fruit & vegetables causes less cancer? No.
Some people who eat more fruits and vegetables also have fewer cancers. Yes.
Eating more fruits & vegetables will lower your personal risk of cancer. No.
This study does not mean I can actually affect my own health by chosing to eat more fruits and vegetables. It means the study found something in common between people who get less cancer and people who eat more fruits and vegetables.
Maybe not having cancer causes people to eat more fruits and vegetables?
I think that is exactly what is meant by "statistically significant protective effect" though.0 -
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »
I gotta log off for a bit and take it all in...lol. "Hello bottom, have you met rock?"
I am feeling much the same today. I feel like whereever I look, common sense is being completely abdicated in favor of just winning points in an argument.
I will remember the heck out of this thread and line of argument the next time the argument comes down to "all that's needed to lose weight is a calorie deficit" "What you eat matters!!!! You didn't say anything about nutrition!!!! You just can't eat donuts all day!!!"
Because, see, I just had a little jaunt through Google Scholar. The ketogenic diet is known to be deficient in nutrients and requires supplementation. In some cases, these deficiencies caused diseases.
So, hey, it's all good. Take a supplement, and your diet is all nice and healthy. Who needs fortified grains or veggies or anything? You can get what you need from "other sources".
This thinking will apply to those of us who like to have some ice cream now and then, right?0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »<snip>there wouldn't be much quality potty time going on without them! Tons of meat and cheese! Just thinking about the constipation makes me cringe.
One of the advantages of low carb is fewer BMs. They still happen and with no problem, they just don't happen as often. Constipation usually means dehydration, which applies to regular diets too.
By the by, most low carb people do eat veggies. It's the higher carb ones that are avoided or at least rationed. Low carb doesn't always mean zero veggies. It can, but it doesn't have to. Hubby is in keto. For lunch, he's eating 350g of chicken meat, 125g of mushrooms, and 320g of veggies. He ate veggies for breakfast and he'll have them for dinner too.
there have already been comments here about how they are really not necessary nor have they proven to have any health benefits, etc...this kind of dogma goes on a lot around here it seems...
Those comments were made in response to someone else saying that eating no veggies wouldn't be good for you, which was made in response to someone else stating that no one will suffer ill health without sugar (not veggies). Does anyone know of a study showing that people who do not consume fruits and/or veggies experience adverse health effects, even in cases where the person is able to get the nutrients from an alternative source?
really? i'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that most people who aren't eating their veg and fruit are pretty deficient nutrient wise and would thus suffer adverse consequences. the vast majority of the population doesn't know jack about actual nutrition nor do most new users to MFP...so i think suggesting that vegetables and whatnot aren't necessary to a healthy diet is somewhat disturbing....but hey...that's just me...carry on.
If you're claiming that what someone said is wrong and that people are going to suffer adverse consequences even in cases where they are getting those same nutrients from other sources, I'd like to see a study backing up that claim. Anecdotally, I know several people who do not include fruits and veggies as a staple in their diets and who have no adverse health issues or are nutrient-deficient, so I'm interested to see the research supporting your claim that these are necessary for a healthy diet.
yea, that poster clearly said if they were not getting their nutrients there would be adverse health affects. He never made reference to alternate sources...so not really sure where you are going with this.
The people being accused of low carb/keto dogma have very clearly stated in this thread that veggies are not necessary and the nutrients can be obtained from other sources, so I'm left wondering where others who are stating people will be nutrient deficient without veggies are going with their statements. It's right here:lemurcat12 wrote: »
Maybe it makes them feel bad? Maybe they like to experiment? Sugar is fun to eat, but no one will suffer ill health without it.
Eating no veggies isn't good for you. Yeah, there are ways to make up the micronutrients (although I suspect they aren't as good), but the vast majority of people who mostly cut out veggies don't actually eat lots of organ meats and the like. (And the traditional Inuit diet, while not keto, doesn't compete with the blue zone diets anyway.)
So claiming eating no veggies is perfectly healthy seems inaccurate.
EVERY nutrient in vegetables is available elsewhere, vegetables are not the only easy source of life sustaining nutrients. Eating no veggies is not bad for you, you just need to increase familiarity of nutrient content of other food sources to make it easy and healthy.
It seems like the veggie argument goalpost is being moved all over the place in this discussion. The low carb people are saying that sugar, including the sugar in fruit or veggies, is not necessary for good health because the body can produce its own. No one is saying the nutrients are unnecessary, they are just stating that they can be obtained from other sources.
Unless someone has a study that can prove that fruits and veggies are absolutely necessary to a healthy diet and that people who do not eat fruits and veggies, even if obtaining nutrients from alternative sources, will suffer adverse health effects, then it seems this discussion is more about people's personal food preferences than the necessity of certain foods being included in a diet based on science.
Well given this:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01635589209514201
Says fruits and vegetable consumption, particularly fruit, reduces cancer risk, and other studies have shown no reduction in cancer from supplements (study I heard mentioned by Harvard nutrition, so I don't have it handy), I'd say there is something in fruit but not in supplements that has cancer preventative properties. Does increased risk of cancer qualify as adverse health effects?
Eating more fruit & vegetables causes less cancer? No.
Some people who eat more fruits and vegetables also have fewer cancers. Yes.
Eating more fruits & vegetables will lower your personal risk of cancer. No.
This study does not mean I can actually affect my own health by chosing to eat more fruits and vegetables. It means the study found something in common between people who get less cancer and people who eat more fruits and vegetables.
Maybe not having cancer causes people to eat more fruits and vegetables?
Limits of studies - these things generally have to be epidemological. Do you have an ethical and efficacious way to test if eating fruits and vegetables prevent cancer? I'd be fascinated by the design of such a study, as would much of academia. Barring that, looking at epideomological data and removing confounders tends to be a limit for these kind of things.
I could look up phytonutrients and probably flood links that they are related to cancer reduction.
Personally, I'm not inclined to think it is sheer coincidence that people eating fruits and vegetables have lower risks for a plethora of diseases. You're free to draw what conclusions you like from them - your health is in your hands.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »
I gotta log off for a bit and take it all in...lol. "Hello bottom, have you met rock?"
I am feeling much the same today. I feel like whereever I look, common sense is being completely abdicated in favor of just winning points in an argument.
I will remember the heck out of this thread and line of argument the next time the argument comes down to "all that's needed to lose weight is a calorie deficit" "What you eat matters!!!! You didn't say anything about nutrition!!!! You just can't eat donuts all day!!!"
Because, see, I just had a little jaunt through Google Scholar. The ketogenic diet is known to be deficient in nutrients and requires supplementation. In some cases, these deficiencies caused diseases.
So, hey, it's all good. Take a supplement, and your diet is all nice and healthy. Who needs fortified grains or veggies or anything? You can get what you need from "other sources".
This thinking will apply to those of us who like to have some ice cream now and then, right?
Would you care to share any of those articles from Google Scholar?0 -
I have gone without sugar or food for 24 hours many times, so it is possible. I am eating my donuts and my broccoli today, not taking multiple supplements, having a nice BM tomorrow and losing weight this week, that's possible too. Life is full of possibilities, some are more pleasurable than others.0
-
No, what people in this thread said is that sugar is not necessary, which got turned into "but you need fruits and veggies, which have sugar, because nutrients."
Because that was explicitly what was being discussed from the first post -- whether it was truly possible to cut out ALL sugar, including that from fruits and vegetables. This is an offshoot of another thread, and the OP expressed puzzlement several times there about the idea that one would cut out vegetables, based on comments from keto zealots who kept saying that it was perfectly healthy to eat no carbs at all.
And yes, the fact that one is much more likely to get the micronutrients one needs if one eats vegetables and vanishingly unlikely to have a healthful diet without vegetables is relevant to that claim (outside a traditional culture where the diet would explicitly contain substitutes, and even then ALL the blue zone diets have lots of vegetables and there is a strong correlation between positive health outcomes and eating lots of vegetables and fruit and a negative one for eating lots of sat fat). It's not like people say "of course you should eat vegetables for health, but if you are really careful and eat a good variety of organ meats and some other substitutes you can avoid it" and of course no one understands this. And given the negative comments about carbs and the claims that people are avoiding carbs for health, it certainly is reasonable to see the comments as basically saying that fewer carbs is always better, even if that means no vegetables.
And yes, it's different than vegan diets. Vegans here generally acknowledge that they need to supplement some things and those things are discrete and easy to supplement. Also, people who have a good vegan diet are often much more mindful of nutrition, which is not the case with the average newbie thinking she might try keto.0 -
This was after just a quick look through...
Studies/articles mentioning the need for supplementation:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/7253814_Mondino_Foundation._The_ketogenic_diet_From_molecular_mechanisms_to_clinical_effects
http://jcn.sagepub.com/content/16/9/633.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01827.x/full
More are behind pay walls but some of the text can be seen when you do a search.
Here are two showing deficiencies found:
http://bjo.bmj.com/content/63/3/191.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1528-1157.2003.26102.x/full0 -
Science is providing too much information. People no longer eat like people.0
-
http://www.epilepsy.com/learn/treating-seizures-and-epilepsy/dietary-therapies/ketogenic-diet
Discusses the ketogenic diet pro's and con's. Interesting how they find it difficult for adults to adhere to it and children too.
A few issues with long term use are listed also. No mention though of avoiding vegetables and fruits. Meh, kidney stones, bone fractures, etc do not sound like so much fun.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »No, what people in this thread said is that sugar is not necessary, which got turned into "but you need fruits and veggies, which have sugar, because nutrients."
Because that was explicitly what was being discussed from the first post -- whether it was truly possible to cut out ALL sugar, including that from fruits and vegetables. This is an offshoot of another thread, and the OP expressed puzzlement several times there about the idea that one would cut out vegetables, based on comments from keto zealots who kept saying that it was perfectly healthy to eat no carbs at all.
And yes, the fact that one is much more likely to get the micronutrients one needs if one eats vegetables and vanishingly unlikely to have a healthful diet without vegetables is relevant to that claim (outside a traditional culture where the diet would explicitly contain substitutes, and even then ALL the blue zone diets have lots of vegetables and there is a strong correlation between positive health outcomes and eating lots of vegetables and fruit and a negative one for eating lots of sat fat). It's not like people say "of course you should eat vegetables for health, but if you are really careful and eat a good variety of organ meats and some other substitutes you can avoid it" and of course no one understands this. And given the negative comments about carbs and the claims that people are avoiding carbs for health, it certainly is reasonable to see the comments as basically saying that fewer carbs is always better, even if that means no vegetables.
And yes, it's different than vegan diets. Vegans here generally acknowledge that they need to supplement some things and those things are discrete and easy to supplement. Also, people who have a good vegan diet are often much more mindful of nutrition, which is not the case with the average newbie thinking she might try keto.
I'm not going to dispute that people who have a good vegan diet are more mindful of nutrition, but there are also plenty of people who decide to become vegetarians or vegans without doing the research and end up sick, and even people who don't follow the instructions for MFP and end up massively undereating or have their macros completely out of whack. Not researching is hardly exclusive to low carb or keto.
I honestly do not think that most of the low carb users here do not consume any fruits or veggies. I think most of them do, and that when people talk about avoiding or cutting carbs for health, they aren't talking about fruits and veggies, they are talking about breads, pastas, sweets, etc. MFP is the only place I've ever encountered when someone saying they are interested in low carb is met with comments about giving up fruits and veggies. Just for fun, I googled "giving up carbs" and the top results are all about giving up cookies, pasta, bread, rice, etc. While the person who posted that other topic may have mentioned giving up veggies, I do not think that is the reality for most low carb users and it's a MFP myth that we could all probably benefit from dying out.
I feel like what got twisted around in this thread is two separate issues: 1. whether the body needs carbs (as in a glucose source) to survive, to which most keto dieters would say no, although I suspect that is much more "in theory" than in actual practice, because I don't know of anyone who is zero carb, and 2. whether a diet without fruits and veggies will be not healthy despite the caveat that the person is getting their nutrients from other sources. I have no opinion on #1, the discussions about gluconeogenesis and ketones are right up there with insulin spikes as things I just don't want to read about, and therefore do not read or get involved.
As far as #2, I am concerned about making sweeping generalizations about a particular WOE being unhealthy just because it does not include certain foods, which is why I asked for any studies to back up the claim. I like fruits and veggies, I eat them, I think they have great benefits, and I would encourage others to eat them. But I also recognize that there are people who cannot or will not eat fruits and veggies for various reasons that are not my business, and while encouraging consumption is good, we should also be focusing on providing scientific evidence for people to review and decide for themselves. I don't think that expecting everyone on the forums to be able to provide the same level of support for their positions, no matter what side of the issue they are on, is asking too much, which is why I have been encouraging people to post their sources, and allow people to review the information and talk about it.0 -
catscats222 wrote: »Veggies have sugar, even dairy.
This person stated cutting out sugar completely (not cutting back).
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10284310/the-deal-on-sugar/p1
I have never heard of anyone completely cutting out sugar
Can it be done? Even for a day?
Tell me your experience going 100% without a drop of sugar for a day or longer.
Note: I am at around 50 grams of sugar a day
Sure it can. Don't eat anything at all. Sound advice from a nurse
wouldn't you say? 0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »
I gotta log off for a bit and take it all in...lol. "Hello bottom, have you met rock?"
I am feeling much the same today. I feel like whereever I look, common sense is being completely abdicated in favor of just winning points in an argument.
Or winning the undeserved sympathy of "the people".0 -
Science is providing too much information. People no longer eat like people.
I blame mass media. How does a study stating that people who cut out added sugars lost .4 more lbs in 3 weeks than people who didn't get turned into a headline reading "Cutting out sugar: The Key to Automatic Weight Loss!" (straight from quackwatch). It's disgusting.0 -
I honestly do not think that most of the low carb users here do not consume any fruits or veggies.
I don't think they do either, although a small number boast about eating very few vegetables and suggest that eating more would be bad for their health.
I would NEVER bring up the no vegetable thing, except that certain keto zealots feel compelled, in just about every thread that touches on carbs or sugar, to assert that carbs are entirely unnecessary and you don't need them at all, usually as part of an argument that fat and protein is inherently healthier. Given how important vegetables are for a healthful diet, I think that's irresponsible and misleading and certainly would give newbies the idea that eating vegetables isn't important and dropping them could even be defended as "for health." And since this is a site where lots of people post "picky eater -- hate vegetables" or admit they won't eat them or post a thread "can you be a clean eater and not eat vegetables?" and many similar such examples, I don't think the message that vegetables aren't important should stand without being countered. So I counter it.
OP also was NOT asking about cutting down on added sugar and starches. She was specifically talking about a claim in the other thread that NO sugar is necessary, and she had asked there about vegetables.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »No, what people in this thread said is that sugar is not necessary, which got turned into "but you need fruits and veggies, which have sugar, because nutrients."
Because that was explicitly what was being discussed from the first post -- whether it was truly possible to cut out ALL sugar, including that from fruits and vegetables. This is an offshoot of another thread, and the OP expressed puzzlement several times there about the idea that one would cut out vegetables, based on comments from keto zealots who kept saying that it was perfectly healthy to eat no carbs at all.
And yes, the fact that one is much more likely to get the micronutrients one needs if one eats vegetables and vanishingly unlikely to have a healthful diet without vegetables is relevant to that claim (outside a traditional culture where the diet would explicitly contain substitutes, and even then ALL the blue zone diets have lots of vegetables and there is a strong correlation between positive health outcomes and eating lots of vegetables and fruit and a negative one for eating lots of sat fat). It's not like people say "of course you should eat vegetables for health, but if you are really careful and eat a good variety of organ meats and some other substitutes you can avoid it" and of course no one understands this. And given the negative comments about carbs and the claims that people are avoiding carbs for health, it certainly is reasonable to see the comments as basically saying that fewer carbs is always better, even if that means no vegetables.
And yes, it's different than vegan diets. Vegans here generally acknowledge that they need to supplement some things and those things are discrete and easy to supplement. Also, people who have a good vegan diet are often much more mindful of nutrition, which is not the case with the average newbie thinking she might try keto.
I'm not going to dispute that people who have a good vegan diet are more mindful of nutrition, but there are also plenty of people who decide to become vegetarians or vegans without doing the research and end up sick, and even people who don't follow the instructions for MFP and end up massively undereating or have their macros completely out of whack. Not researching is hardly exclusive to low carb or keto.
I honestly do not think that most of the low carb users here do not consume any fruits or veggies. I think most of them do, and that when people talk about avoiding or cutting carbs for health, they aren't talking about fruits and veggies, they are talking about breads, pastas, sweets, etc. MFP is the only place I've ever encountered when someone saying they are interested in low carb is met with comments about giving up fruits and veggies. Just for fun, I googled "giving up carbs" and the top results are all about giving up cookies, pasta, bread, rice, etc. While the person who posted that other topic may have mentioned giving up veggies, I do not think that is the reality for most low carb users and it's a MFP myth that we could all probably benefit from dying out.
I feel like what got twisted around in this thread is two separate issues: 1. whether the body needs carbs (as in a glucose source) to survive, to which most keto dieters would say no, although I suspect that is much more "in theory" than in actual practice, because I don't know of anyone who is zero carb, and 2. whether a diet without fruits and veggies will be not healthy despite the caveat that the person is getting their nutrients from other sources. I have no opinion on #1, the discussions about gluconeogenesis and ketones are right up there with insulin spikes as things I just don't want to read about, and therefore do not read or get involved.
As far as #2, I am concerned about making sweeping generalizations about a particular WOE being unhealthy just because it does not include certain foods, which is why I asked for any studies to back up the claim. I like fruits and veggies, I eat them, I think they have great benefits, and I would encourage others to eat them. But I also recognize that there are people who cannot or will not eat fruits and veggies for various reasons that are not my business, and while encouraging consumption is good, we should also be focusing on providing scientific evidence for people to review and decide for themselves. I don't think that expecting everyone on the forums to be able to provide the same level of support for their positions, no matter what side of the issue they are on, is asking too much, which is why I have been encouraging people to post their sources, and allow people to review the information and talk about it.
The ketogenic dieters who routinely consume less than 20g of carbs a day are not getting a wide variety of vegetables.
There's low carb, and then there's low carb.
Some of the posters you're defending have issues with even consuming plentiful amounts of non-starchy vegetables. I believe one has even gone so far as to comment that spinach negatively impacted her blood glucose.
I do take issue with that, because these people go on and on that they are doing what they do for health.
I have no problem with anyone who low carbs and does so sensibly. I do have issue with the super low ketogenic version that drastically limits vegetable intake when they turn around and play the "health" card.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »No, what people in this thread said is that sugar is not necessary, which got turned into "but you need fruits and veggies, which have sugar, because nutrients."
Because that was explicitly what was being discussed from the first post -- whether it was truly possible to cut out ALL sugar, including that from fruits and vegetables. This is an offshoot of another thread, and the OP expressed puzzlement several times there about the idea that one would cut out vegetables, based on comments from keto zealots who kept saying that it was perfectly healthy to eat no carbs at all.
And yes, the fact that one is much more likely to get the micronutrients one needs if one eats vegetables and vanishingly unlikely to have a healthful diet without vegetables is relevant to that claim (outside a traditional culture where the diet would explicitly contain substitutes, and even then ALL the blue zone diets have lots of vegetables and there is a strong correlation between positive health outcomes and eating lots of vegetables and fruit and a negative one for eating lots of sat fat). It's not like people say "of course you should eat vegetables for health, but if you are really careful and eat a good variety of organ meats and some other substitutes you can avoid it" and of course no one understands this. And given the negative comments about carbs and the claims that people are avoiding carbs for health, it certainly is reasonable to see the comments as basically saying that fewer carbs is always better, even if that means no vegetables.
And yes, it's different than vegan diets. Vegans here generally acknowledge that they need to supplement some things and those things are discrete and easy to supplement. Also, people who have a good vegan diet are often much more mindful of nutrition, which is not the case with the average newbie thinking she might try keto.
I'm not going to dispute that people who have a good vegan diet are more mindful of nutrition, but there are also plenty of people who decide to become vegetarians or vegans without doing the research and end up sick, and even people who don't follow the instructions for MFP and end up massively undereating or have their macros completely out of whack. Not researching is hardly exclusive to low carb or keto.
I honestly do not think that most of the low carb users here do not consume any fruits or veggies. I think most of them do, and that when people talk about avoiding or cutting carbs for health, they aren't talking about fruits and veggies, they are talking about breads, pastas, sweets, etc. MFP is the only place I've ever encountered when someone saying they are interested in low carb is met with comments about giving up fruits and veggies. Just for fun, I googled "giving up carbs" and the top results are all about giving up cookies, pasta, bread, rice, etc. While the person who posted that other topic may have mentioned giving up veggies, I do not think that is the reality for most low carb users and it's a MFP myth that we could all probably benefit from dying out.
I feel like what got twisted around in this thread is two separate issues: 1. whether the body needs carbs (as in a glucose source) to survive, to which most keto dieters would say no, although I suspect that is much more "in theory" than in actual practice, because I don't know of anyone who is zero carb, and 2. whether a diet without fruits and veggies will be not healthy despite the caveat that the person is getting their nutrients from other sources. I have no opinion on #1, the discussions about gluconeogenesis and ketones are right up there with insulin spikes as things I just don't want to read about, and therefore do not read or get involved.
As far as #2, I am concerned about making sweeping generalizations about a particular WOE being unhealthy just because it does not include certain foods, which is why I asked for any studies to back up the claim. I like fruits and veggies, I eat them, I think they have great benefits, and I would encourage others to eat them. But I also recognize that there are people who cannot or will not eat fruits and veggies for various reasons that are not my business, and while encouraging consumption is good, we should also be focusing on providing scientific evidence for people to review and decide for themselves. I don't think that expecting everyone on the forums to be able to provide the same level of support for their positions, no matter what side of the issue they are on, is asking too much, which is why I have been encouraging people to post their sources, and allow people to review the information and talk about it.
The ketogenic dieters who routinely consume less than 20g of carbs a day are not getting a wide variety of vegetables.
There's low carb, and then there's low carb.
Some of the posters you're defending have issues with even consuming plentiful amounts of non-starchy vegetables. I believe one has even gone so far as to comment that spinach negatively impacted her blood glucose.
I do take issue with that, because these people go on and on that they are doing what they do for health.
I have no problem with anyone who low carbs and does so sensibly. I do have issue with the super low ketogenic version that drastically limits vegetable intake when they turn around and play the "health" card.
I'm not "defending" anyone, nor does anyone need defense, they're not on trial. All I have asked for is for people to provide some studies supporting their claims that ketogenic diets have adverse health effects, particularly when people are obtaining the nutrients they need. Unless I missed the post, I haven't seen anyone do that yet; all I've seen are posts talking about how this person or that person said this or that and how someone disagrees with them because they said that. If there's information out there stating why could be a bad idea, that's information that should be shared for people to review.
Edit: Completely missed the post full of blue links above, taking a look now.0 -
From what I can tell, few ketogenic dieters have cut out carbohydrates (sugars) entirely. It's the entirely part that gets my panties in a twist. Let's not even talk about the missing nutrients. I'm talking the total absence of fiber here, and the consequences down under.0
-
No one has said that ketogenic diets are unhealthy. OP's question wasn't even about that. (Although it later turned out she was confused about what keto involves.)0
-
From what I can tell, few ketogenic dieters have cut out carbohydrates (sugars) entirely. It's the entirely part that gets my panties in a twist. Let's not even talk about the missing nutrients. I'm talking the total absence of fiber here, and the consequences down under.
There aren't a load of constipated ketopians in the world. If they are having shipping problems, it's probably dehydration and that can happen on any diet. For ketopians, BMs still happen with no problem, but most don't go every day. Fibre is sort of like packing peanuts for shipping. You can put 1 thing into the box, fill it with peanuts, and ship it the same day. Or you can put 2 things into the box with fewer peanuts and ship it the second day. Ketopians choose to put 2 things into the box before shipping.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »<snip>there wouldn't be much quality potty time going on without them! Tons of meat and cheese! Just thinking about the constipation makes me cringe.
One of the advantages of low carb is fewer BMs. They still happen and with no problem, they just don't happen as often. Constipation usually means dehydration, which applies to regular diets too.
By the by, most low carb people do eat veggies. It's the higher carb ones that are avoided or at least rationed. Low carb doesn't always mean zero veggies. It can, but it doesn't have to. Hubby is in keto. For lunch, he's eating 350g of chicken meat, 125g of mushrooms, and 320g of veggies. He ate veggies for breakfast and he'll have them for dinner too.
there have already been comments here about how they are really not necessary nor have they proven to have any health benefits, etc...this kind of dogma goes on a lot around here it seems...
Those comments were made in response to someone else saying that eating no veggies wouldn't be good for you, which was made in response to someone else stating that no one will suffer ill health without sugar (not veggies). Does anyone know of a study showing that people who do not consume fruits and/or veggies experience adverse health effects, even in cases where the person is able to get the nutrients from an alternative source?
really? i'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that most people who aren't eating their veg and fruit are pretty deficient nutrient wise and would thus suffer adverse consequences. the vast majority of the population doesn't know jack about actual nutrition nor do most new users to MFP...so i think suggesting that vegetables and whatnot aren't necessary to a healthy diet is somewhat disturbing....but hey...that's just me...carry on.
If you're claiming that what someone said is wrong and that people are going to suffer adverse consequences even in cases where they are getting those same nutrients from other sources, I'd like to see a study backing up that claim. Anecdotally, I know several people who do not include fruits and veggies as a staple in their diets and who have no adverse health issues or are nutrient-deficient, so I'm interested to see the research supporting your claim that these are necessary for a healthy diet.
yea, that poster clearly said if they were not getting their nutrients there would be adverse health affects. He never made reference to alternate sources...so not really sure where you are going with this.
The people being accused of low carb/keto dogma have very clearly stated in this thread that veggies are not necessary and the nutrients can be obtained from other sources, so I'm left wondering where others who are stating people will be nutrient deficient without veggies are going with their statements. It's right here:lemurcat12 wrote: »
Maybe it makes them feel bad? Maybe they like to experiment? Sugar is fun to eat, but no one will suffer ill health without it.
Eating no veggies isn't good for you. Yeah, there are ways to make up the micronutrients (although I suspect they aren't as good), but the vast majority of people who mostly cut out veggies don't actually eat lots of organ meats and the like. (And the traditional Inuit diet, while not keto, doesn't compete with the blue zone diets anyway.)
So claiming eating no veggies is perfectly healthy seems inaccurate.
EVERY nutrient in vegetables is available elsewhere, vegetables are not the only easy source of life sustaining nutrients. Eating no veggies is not bad for you, you just need to increase familiarity of nutrient content of other food sources to make it easy and healthy.
It seems like the veggie argument goalpost is being moved all over the place in this discussion. The low carb people are saying that sugar, including the sugar in fruit or veggies, is not necessary for good health because the body can produce its own. No one is saying the nutrients are unnecessary, they are just stating that they can be obtained from other sources.
Unless someone has a study that can prove that fruits and veggies are absolutely necessary to a healthy diet and that people who do not eat fruits and veggies, even if obtaining nutrients from alternative sources, will suffer adverse health effects, then it seems this discussion is more about people's personal food preferences than the necessity of certain foods being included in a diet based on science.
again, the person you were responding to clearly said not getting nutrients would be bad for health. That poster never said that source mattered, just getting enough nutrients..
officially mind blown0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »This was after just a quick look through...
Studies/articles mentioning the need for supplementation:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/7253814_Mondino_Foundation._The_ketogenic_diet_From_molecular_mechanisms_to_clinical_effects
http://jcn.sagepub.com/content/16/9/633.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01827.x/full
More are behind pay walls but some of the text can be seen when you do a search.
Here are two showing deficiencies found:
http://bjo.bmj.com/content/63/3/191.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1528-1157.2003.26102.x/full
To address the two articles with deficiencies found, the first article where the two patients were diagnosed with optic neuropathy, both sets of parents in both case studies admitted that they were not giving the children the prescribed vitamin and mineral supplements. While this does support the claim that the ketogenic diet is lacking in some nutrients, it doesn't provide evidence that people who do keto diets and are obtaining the proper nutrients are at risk.
In the second article, the patient was found to be deficient in selenium, which led to a dilated cardiomyopathy. But later in the article, it states that "Dietary selenium is found in the highest concentrations in meat and seafood," which would be staples of the keto diet. It also states that "Assessment of selenium status is difficult because no optimal method is known. Dietary assessment is inaccurate, and selenium content depends on where the food was grown (soil content), which is usually unknown," which indicates that selenium deficiency is not unique to a keto diet and could occur even in people who eat a diet rich in grains and veggies simply based on location.
It is disappointing that most of the research around keto diets seems to relate to epilepsy as that makes the results difficult to translate to the larger population. Some of the treatments seem to impact nutrient absorption and issues around oral ingestion of foods make it difficult for researchers to get accurate data. That's not to say that a keto diet is not going to have deficiencies, it would just be helpful if the research were more applicable to genpop.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »This was after just a quick look through...
Studies/articles mentioning the need for supplementation:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/7253814_Mondino_Foundation._The_ketogenic_diet_From_molecular_mechanisms_to_clinical_effects
http://jcn.sagepub.com/content/16/9/633.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01827.x/full
More are behind pay walls but some of the text can be seen when you do a search.
Here are two showing deficiencies found:
http://bjo.bmj.com/content/63/3/191.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1528-1157.2003.26102.x/full
To address the two articles with deficiencies found, the first article where the two patients were diagnosed with optic neuropathy, both sets of parents in both case studies admitted that they were not giving the children the prescribed vitamin and mineral supplements. While this does support the claim that the ketogenic diet is lacking in some nutrients, it doesn't provide evidence that people who do keto diets and are obtaining the proper nutrients are at risk.
In the second article, the patient was found to be deficient in selenium, which led to a dilated cardiomyopathy. But later in the article, it states that "Dietary selenium is found in the highest concentrations in meat and seafood," which would be staples of the keto diet. It also states that "Assessment of selenium status is difficult because no optimal method is known. Dietary assessment is inaccurate, and selenium content depends on where the food was grown (soil content), which is usually unknown," which indicates that selenium deficiency is not unique to a keto diet and could occur even in people who eat a diet rich in grains and veggies simply based on location.
It is disappointing that most of the research around keto diets seems to relate to epilepsy as that makes the results difficult to translate to the larger population. Some of the treatments seem to impact nutrient absorption and issues around oral ingestion of foods make it difficult for researchers to get accurate data. That's not to say that a keto diet is not going to have deficiencies, it would just be helpful if the research were more applicable to genpop.
Yeah, another drawback is that most of the research is on children, and most of them are prescribed supplements from the get-go because the diet itself is recognized as being nutrient deficient.
You sort of have to add 2 and 2 here.
Why is the diet inherently nutrient deficient?0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »<snip>there wouldn't be much quality potty time going on without them! Tons of meat and cheese! Just thinking about the constipation makes me cringe.
One of the advantages of low carb is fewer BMs. They still happen and with no problem, they just don't happen as often. Constipation usually means dehydration, which applies to regular diets too.
By the by, most low carb people do eat veggies. It's the higher carb ones that are avoided or at least rationed. Low carb doesn't always mean zero veggies. It can, but it doesn't have to. Hubby is in keto. For lunch, he's eating 350g of chicken meat, 125g of mushrooms, and 320g of veggies. He ate veggies for breakfast and he'll have them for dinner too.
there have already been comments here about how they are really not necessary nor have they proven to have any health benefits, etc...this kind of dogma goes on a lot around here it seems...
Those comments were made in response to someone else saying that eating no veggies wouldn't be good for you, which was made in response to someone else stating that no one will suffer ill health without sugar (not veggies). Does anyone know of a study showing that people who do not consume fruits and/or veggies experience adverse health effects, even in cases where the person is able to get the nutrients from an alternative source?
really? i'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that most people who aren't eating their veg and fruit are pretty deficient nutrient wise and would thus suffer adverse consequences. the vast majority of the population doesn't know jack about actual nutrition nor do most new users to MFP...so i think suggesting that vegetables and whatnot aren't necessary to a healthy diet is somewhat disturbing....but hey...that's just me...carry on.
If you're claiming that what someone said is wrong and that people are going to suffer adverse consequences even in cases where they are getting those same nutrients from other sources, I'd like to see a study backing up that claim. Anecdotally, I know several people who do not include fruits and veggies as a staple in their diets and who have no adverse health issues or are nutrient-deficient, so I'm interested to see the research supporting your claim that these are necessary for a healthy diet.
yea, that poster clearly said if they were not getting their nutrients there would be adverse health affects. He never made reference to alternate sources...so not really sure where you are going with this.
The people being accused of low carb/keto dogma have very clearly stated in this thread that veggies are not necessary and the nutrients can be obtained from other sources, so I'm left wondering where others who are stating people will be nutrient deficient without veggies are going with their statements. It's right here:lemurcat12 wrote: »
Maybe it makes them feel bad? Maybe they like to experiment? Sugar is fun to eat, but no one will suffer ill health without it.
Eating no veggies isn't good for you. Yeah, there are ways to make up the micronutrients (although I suspect they aren't as good), but the vast majority of people who mostly cut out veggies don't actually eat lots of organ meats and the like. (And the traditional Inuit diet, while not keto, doesn't compete with the blue zone diets anyway.)
So claiming eating no veggies is perfectly healthy seems inaccurate.
EVERY nutrient in vegetables is available elsewhere, vegetables are not the only easy source of life sustaining nutrients. Eating no veggies is not bad for you, you just need to increase familiarity of nutrient content of other food sources to make it easy and healthy.
It seems like the veggie argument goalpost is being moved all over the place in this discussion. The low carb people are saying that sugar, including the sugar in fruit or veggies, is not necessary for good health because the body can produce its own. No one is saying the nutrients are unnecessary, they are just stating that they can be obtained from other sources.
Unless someone has a study that can prove that fruits and veggies are absolutely necessary to a healthy diet and that people who do not eat fruits and veggies, even if obtaining nutrients from alternative sources, will suffer adverse health effects, then it seems this discussion is more about people's personal food preferences than the necessity of certain foods being included in a diet based on science.
Well given this:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01635589209514201
Says fruits and vegetable consumption, particularly fruit, reduces cancer risk, and other studies have shown no reduction in cancer from supplements (study I heard mentioned by Harvard nutrition, so I don't have it handy), I'd say there is something in fruit but not in supplements that has cancer preventative properties. Does increased risk of cancer qualify as adverse health effects?
Eating more fruit & vegetables causes less cancer? No.
Some people who eat more fruits and vegetables also have fewer cancers. Yes.
Eating more fruits & vegetables will lower your personal risk of cancer. No.
This study does not mean I can actually affect my own health by chosing to eat more fruits and vegetables. It means the study found something in common between people who get less cancer and people who eat more fruits and vegetables.
Maybe not having cancer causes people to eat more fruits and vegetables?
Limits of studies - these things generally have to be epidemological. Do you have an ethical and efficacious way to test if eating fruits and vegetables prevent cancer? I'd be fascinated by the design of such a study, as would much of academia. Barring that, looking at epideomological data and removing confounders tends to be a limit for these kind of things.
I could look up phytonutrients and probably flood links that they are related to cancer reduction.
Personally, I'm not inclined to think it is sheer coincidence that people eating fruits and vegetables have lower risks for a plethora of diseases. You're free to draw what conclusions you like from them - your health is in your hands.
I understand, and nutrition studies are problematic - pretty much all of them. I also don't think it is a coincidence that those eating fruits and vegetables have lower cancer rates, but confounders are truly almost impossible to completely draw out and it still may not be by direct cause/effect.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Are you posting this as a mod or as a user?cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »<snip>there wouldn't be much quality potty time going on without them! Tons of meat and cheese! Just thinking about the constipation makes me cringe.
One of the advantages of low carb is fewer BMs. They still happen and with no problem, they just don't happen as often. Constipation usually means dehydration, which applies to regular diets too.
By the by, most low carb people do eat veggies. It's the higher carb ones that are avoided or at least rationed. Low carb doesn't always mean zero veggies. It can, but it doesn't have to. Hubby is in keto. For lunch, he's eating 350g of chicken meat, 125g of mushrooms, and 320g of veggies. He ate veggies for breakfast and he'll have them for dinner too.
there have already been comments here about how they are really not necessary nor have they proven to have any health benefits, etc...this kind of dogma goes on a lot around here it seems...
Those comments were made in response to someone else saying that eating no veggies wouldn't be good for you, which was made in response to someone else stating that no one will suffer ill health without sugar (not veggies). Does anyone know of a study showing that people who do not consume fruits and/or veggies experience adverse health effects, even in cases where the person is able to get the nutrients from an alternative source?
really? i'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that most people who aren't eating their veg and fruit are pretty deficient nutrient wise and would thus suffer adverse consequences. the vast majority of the population doesn't know jack about actual nutrition nor do most new users to MFP...so i think suggesting that vegetables and whatnot aren't necessary to a healthy diet is somewhat disturbing....but hey...that's just me...carry on.
If you're claiming that what someone said is wrong and that people are going to suffer adverse consequences even in cases where they are getting those same nutrients from other sources, I'd like to see a study backing up that claim. Anecdotally, I know several people who do not include fruits and veggies as a staple in their diets and who have no adverse health issues or are nutrient-deficient, so I'm interested to see the research supporting your claim that these are necessary for a healthy diet.
yea, that poster clearly said if they were not getting their nutrients there would be adverse health affects. He never made reference to alternate sources...so not really sure where you are going with this.
The people being accused of low carb/keto dogma have very clearly stated in this thread that veggies are not necessary and the nutrients can be obtained from other sources, so I'm left wondering where others who are stating people will be nutrient deficient without veggies are going with their statements. It's right here:lemurcat12 wrote: »
Maybe it makes them feel bad? Maybe they like to experiment? Sugar is fun to eat, but no one will suffer ill health without it.
Eating no veggies isn't good for you. Yeah, there are ways to make up the micronutrients (although I suspect they aren't as good), but the vast majority of people who mostly cut out veggies don't actually eat lots of organ meats and the like. (And the traditional Inuit diet, while not keto, doesn't compete with the blue zone diets anyway.)
So claiming eating no veggies is perfectly healthy seems inaccurate.
EVERY nutrient in vegetables is available elsewhere, vegetables are not the only easy source of life sustaining nutrients. Eating no veggies is not bad for you, you just need to increase familiarity of nutrient content of other food sources to make it easy and healthy.
It seems like the veggie argument goalpost is being moved all over the place in this discussion. The low carb people are saying that sugar, including the sugar in fruit or veggies, is not necessary for good health because the body can produce its own. No one is saying the nutrients are unnecessary, they are just stating that they can be obtained from other sources.
Unless someone has a study that can prove that fruits and veggies are absolutely necessary to a healthy diet and that people who do not eat fruits and veggies, even if obtaining nutrients from alternative sources, will suffer adverse health effects, then it seems this discussion is more about people's personal food preferences than the necessity of certain foods being included in a diet based on science.
I am certain I've read that mods don't moderate in threads in which they are participating as users, and since she's not using mod-speak in this thread, my conclusion is that she's posting as a user.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »This was after just a quick look through...
Studies/articles mentioning the need for supplementation:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/7253814_Mondino_Foundation._The_ketogenic_diet_From_molecular_mechanisms_to_clinical_effects
http://jcn.sagepub.com/content/16/9/633.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01827.x/full
More are behind pay walls but some of the text can be seen when you do a search.
Here are two showing deficiencies found:
http://bjo.bmj.com/content/63/3/191.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1528-1157.2003.26102.x/full
To address the two articles with deficiencies found, the first article where the two patients were diagnosed with optic neuropathy, both sets of parents in both case studies admitted that they were not giving the children the prescribed vitamin and mineral supplements. While this does support the claim that the ketogenic diet is lacking in some nutrients, it doesn't provide evidence that people who do keto diets and are obtaining the proper nutrients are at risk.
In the second article, the patient was found to be deficient in selenium, which led to a dilated cardiomyopathy. But later in the article, it states that "Dietary selenium is found in the highest concentrations in meat and seafood," which would be staples of the keto diet. It also states that "Assessment of selenium status is difficult because no optimal method is known. Dietary assessment is inaccurate, and selenium content depends on where the food was grown (soil content), which is usually unknown," which indicates that selenium deficiency is not unique to a keto diet and could occur even in people who eat a diet rich in grains and veggies simply based on location.
It is disappointing that most of the research around keto diets seems to relate to epilepsy as that makes the results difficult to translate to the larger population. Some of the treatments seem to impact nutrient absorption and issues around oral ingestion of foods make it difficult for researchers to get accurate data. That's not to say that a keto diet is not going to have deficiencies, it would just be helpful if the research were more applicable to genpop.
Yeah, another drawback is that most of the research is on children, and most of them are prescribed supplements from the get-go because the diet itself is recognized as being nutrient deficient.
You sort of have to add 2 and 2 here.
Why is the diet inherently nutrient deficient?
Do we have a source anywhere stating which nutrients are deficient on a keto diet following the tenets of the diet? I'm not sure nutrient deficiencies in epileptic kids is the best baseline given the illness and the fact they are still growing, and all I've found from google is concerns about magnesium and recommendations to eat nuts. But that also goes with keto diets which include vegetables, because keto includes vegetables to a degree. I also haven't seen anything on how deficient - are we talking a multivitamin that many people take no matter how they eat, or are we headed into heavy duty supplementation of certain nutrients?
I don't think no carb diet even exists, perhaps @umayster can shed some light on diet planning and supplements for no veggie diets and how that would work.0 -
A quick dose of glucose - intravenously if necessary - is the only treatment for a diabetic who is going in to insulin shock. Protein just couldn't deliver fast enough before the damage would be done.0
-
I'm certain I've read that, too. To say more than that would probably be seen as commenting on moderation, so I shan't.kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Are you posting this as a mod or as a user?cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »<snip>there wouldn't be much quality potty time going on without them! Tons of meat and cheese! Just thinking about the constipation makes me cringe.
One of the advantages of low carb is fewer BMs. They still happen and with no problem, they just don't happen as often. Constipation usually means dehydration, which applies to regular diets too.
By the by, most low carb people do eat veggies. It's the higher carb ones that are avoided or at least rationed. Low carb doesn't always mean zero veggies. It can, but it doesn't have to. Hubby is in keto. For lunch, he's eating 350g of chicken meat, 125g of mushrooms, and 320g of veggies. He ate veggies for breakfast and he'll have them for dinner too.
there have already been comments here about how they are really not necessary nor have they proven to have any health benefits, etc...this kind of dogma goes on a lot around here it seems...
Those comments were made in response to someone else saying that eating no veggies wouldn't be good for you, which was made in response to someone else stating that no one will suffer ill health without sugar (not veggies). Does anyone know of a study showing that people who do not consume fruits and/or veggies experience adverse health effects, even in cases where the person is able to get the nutrients from an alternative source?
really? i'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that most people who aren't eating their veg and fruit are pretty deficient nutrient wise and would thus suffer adverse consequences. the vast majority of the population doesn't know jack about actual nutrition nor do most new users to MFP...so i think suggesting that vegetables and whatnot aren't necessary to a healthy diet is somewhat disturbing....but hey...that's just me...carry on.
If you're claiming that what someone said is wrong and that people are going to suffer adverse consequences even in cases where they are getting those same nutrients from other sources, I'd like to see a study backing up that claim. Anecdotally, I know several people who do not include fruits and veggies as a staple in their diets and who have no adverse health issues or are nutrient-deficient, so I'm interested to see the research supporting your claim that these are necessary for a healthy diet.
yea, that poster clearly said if they were not getting their nutrients there would be adverse health affects. He never made reference to alternate sources...so not really sure where you are going with this.
The people being accused of low carb/keto dogma have very clearly stated in this thread that veggies are not necessary and the nutrients can be obtained from other sources, so I'm left wondering where others who are stating people will be nutrient deficient without veggies are going with their statements. It's right here:lemurcat12 wrote: »
Maybe it makes them feel bad? Maybe they like to experiment? Sugar is fun to eat, but no one will suffer ill health without it.
Eating no veggies isn't good for you. Yeah, there are ways to make up the micronutrients (although I suspect they aren't as good), but the vast majority of people who mostly cut out veggies don't actually eat lots of organ meats and the like. (And the traditional Inuit diet, while not keto, doesn't compete with the blue zone diets anyway.)
So claiming eating no veggies is perfectly healthy seems inaccurate.
EVERY nutrient in vegetables is available elsewhere, vegetables are not the only easy source of life sustaining nutrients. Eating no veggies is not bad for you, you just need to increase familiarity of nutrient content of other food sources to make it easy and healthy.
It seems like the veggie argument goalpost is being moved all over the place in this discussion. The low carb people are saying that sugar, including the sugar in fruit or veggies, is not necessary for good health because the body can produce its own. No one is saying the nutrients are unnecessary, they are just stating that they can be obtained from other sources.
Unless someone has a study that can prove that fruits and veggies are absolutely necessary to a healthy diet and that people who do not eat fruits and veggies, even if obtaining nutrients from alternative sources, will suffer adverse health effects, then it seems this discussion is more about people's personal food preferences than the necessity of certain foods being included in a diet based on science.
I am certain I've read that mods don't moderate in threads in which they are participating as users, and since she's not using mod-speak in this thread, my conclusion is that she's posting as a user.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »This was after just a quick look through...
Studies/articles mentioning the need for supplementation:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/7253814_Mondino_Foundation._The_ketogenic_diet_From_molecular_mechanisms_to_clinical_effects
http://jcn.sagepub.com/content/16/9/633.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01827.x/full
More are behind pay walls but some of the text can be seen when you do a search.
Here are two showing deficiencies found:
http://bjo.bmj.com/content/63/3/191.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1528-1157.2003.26102.x/full
Ketogenic diets are quite extreme in macro and content when designed for drug resistant epileptics who may have multiple severe health issues and pharmaceutical interventions. I gave up reading the studies on epileptic ketogenic diets because it is a different animal than a diet filled with relatively normal proteins and fats and eaten by folks without multiple significant health issues.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »This was after just a quick look through...
Studies/articles mentioning the need for supplementation:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/7253814_Mondino_Foundation._The_ketogenic_diet_From_molecular_mechanisms_to_clinical_effects
http://jcn.sagepub.com/content/16/9/633.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01827.x/full
More are behind pay walls but some of the text can be seen when you do a search.
Here are two showing deficiencies found:
http://bjo.bmj.com/content/63/3/191.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1528-1157.2003.26102.x/full
To address the two articles with deficiencies found, the first article where the two patients were diagnosed with optic neuropathy, both sets of parents in both case studies admitted that they were not giving the children the prescribed vitamin and mineral supplements. While this does support the claim that the ketogenic diet is lacking in some nutrients, it doesn't provide evidence that people who do keto diets and are obtaining the proper nutrients are at risk.
In the second article, the patient was found to be deficient in selenium, which led to a dilated cardiomyopathy. But later in the article, it states that "Dietary selenium is found in the highest concentrations in meat and seafood," which would be staples of the keto diet. It also states that "Assessment of selenium status is difficult because no optimal method is known. Dietary assessment is inaccurate, and selenium content depends on where the food was grown (soil content), which is usually unknown," which indicates that selenium deficiency is not unique to a keto diet and could occur even in people who eat a diet rich in grains and veggies simply based on location.
It is disappointing that most of the research around keto diets seems to relate to epilepsy as that makes the results difficult to translate to the larger population. Some of the treatments seem to impact nutrient absorption and issues around oral ingestion of foods make it difficult for researchers to get accurate data. That's not to say that a keto diet is not going to have deficiencies, it would just be helpful if the research were more applicable to genpop.
Yeah, another drawback is that most of the research is on children, and most of them are prescribed supplements from the get-go because the diet itself is recognized as being nutrient deficient.
You sort of have to add 2 and 2 here.
Why is the diet inherently nutrient deficient?
It isn't.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
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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