Is low carb dangerous? possibly.
Options
Replies
-
realityfades wrote: »TheBeachgod wrote: »Low carb isn't healthy for those around me! I've noticed I'm moody as hell and absent minded when I go low carb. I quit doing it after I figured that out.
I have no idea if there's any science to back that up but it made a difference for me.
Interesting. Wonder if it's the result of starving your brain of carbohydrates. I've heard of low carb people complaining of brain fog.
You do adjust at a time though, instead of glucose the body seeks out the fat as fuel. Until you adapt you just have no fuel with sucks you dry! Brain fog, headaches, nausea. I felt like I had the flu for a day or two once my glucose ran out and before my body was efficiently using fats. That's the point though, if it's not a lifestyle change then you're in and out, back and forth, your body is confused as heck and never gets to adjust to either fuel form.
This diet didn't work for me long term, I need the carbs to have a happy soul.0 -
I routinely go in and out of ketosis and have done so for just about four years now. My body isn't confused. My brain is not suffering or impaired.
Ketosis is normal and healthful, IME.0 -
The brain doesn't have any glycogen. Keto dieters have normal blood sugars and that's where the brain gets its glucose. Keto flu is more about low blood pressure reducing the brain blood supply as low insulin allows sodium to exit the urine.0
-
realityfades wrote: »TheBeachgod wrote: »Low carb isn't healthy for those around me! I've noticed I'm moody as hell and absent minded when I go low carb. I quit doing it after I figured that out.
I have no idea if there's any science to back that up but it made a difference for me.
Interesting. Wonder if it's the result of starving your brain of carbohydrates. I've heard of low carb people complaining of brain fog.
More typically, it is the opposite. My mind is certainly much clearer eating low carb. (In my case, it appears to be connected to the fact that low carb keeps my blood sugar low.)realityfades wrote: »The South African meerkat carries hardly any fat reserves, so it must eat constantly. They've developed an interesting cooperative social structure to survive.
http://www.livescience.com/27406-meerkats.html
http://www.animalfactguide.com/animal-facts/meerkat/
Low carb can be dangerous for T1 diabetics and hypoglycemics especially, as sometimes they need a fast acting carb to get out of a low.
Wouldn't a diabetic know that though? My friend has type 1 diabetes and she's vigilant about what her body needs and how much, and always tests her blood sugar levels and takes insulin.
I've heard of more people ignoring their diabetes and suffering from lost limbs and leg issue as well as blindness and eventual death as a result
Yes, diabetics should all attend training to understand their disease, and vigilant diabetics will be on the lookout for highs and lows.
Yet, low carb diets are de rigeur in the US right now it seems, to help insulin resistant and T2 diabetics lose weight and lower their blood sugar.
I'll keep repeating until people get it, diabetes is a disease best treated as a balancing act, not going too high or too low with their blood sugars.
When a person's blood sugar drops too low, their cognitive function is impaired and they may not be aware enough to say, eat a cookie right away. Those around them may need to act quickly to prevent them from slipping in to a diabetic coma. The first aid treatment for someone who appears to be experiencing a diabetic high or low (the two may present similarly) is to give them a fast acting carb right away. This is because it will "cure" the low nearly instantly, and won't do immediate damage if the patient's blood sugar is too high.
In principle, you are correct - and T1 is definitely more complicated than T1.
But many T1 diabetics also benefit from a low carb diet. It is easier to keep blood sugar level when the range of carbs consumed is relatively steady. The first of dual food related dangers for T1 diabetics is that their baseline level of insulin may not match their carb consumption if they dramatically change it (e.g. by going on a low carb diet). A T1 diabetic going on a low carb diet would need to adjust that - if they are taking basal insulin). The other is not accurately predicting the mealtime bolus you need (an issue regardless of the level of carb consumption).
The benefits of low carb are not necessarily as significant - because T1 diabetics are not necessarily insulin resistant (although they can be). And T2 diabetics taking insulin or a combination drug that causes the pancreas to produce a steady level of insluin, have some of the same issues with potentially having too much insulin in their bloodstream (causing hypolycemia) if there is inadequate carb consumption.0 -
realityfades wrote: »Yes, I was wondering if maybe there were long term studies done on low carb but I guess not, it might be too big of a liability.
Curious, how do you get glucose if you're following a low carb diet? Don't you eventually run out of glucose storage? Glucose is broken down into sugar and as far as I know, low carb bans most forms of sugar, even fruit and whatnot except for berries. Atkins specifically comes to mind.
Most of the studies to date are short term, but studies in the range of a year have demonstrated low carb/high fat diets are safe and effective both for weight loss and for weight loss/management.0 -
@neohdiver if a T1 diabetic is dropping in to insulin shock, is there any alternative to immediately consuming a carb?0
-
Just control the carb intake. How can you live without lovely lovely carbs.
For some of us, carbs in any significant quantity, are toxic. If I consume more than 15-20 carbs in a 3 hour period, my blood sugar leaves the normal range. There is mounting evidence that chronic elevated blood glucose (in the "prediabetes" range is associated with at least chronic kidney disease and pancreatic damage. Personally, I have been tracking my blood glucose against a number of things - including mental alertness once I realized how much clearer my mind was after starting eating low carb. 130-140 is my current tolerance (the top of the normal range) - beyond that it feels as if I've been run over by a Mack Truck.
I do wish I could eat "lovely lovely carbs" without consequences but currently I can't. So far I do not appear to be among the lucky ones for whom insulin resistance is connected to weight. I have lost 16% of my body weight, and am in the overweight - not obese - weight range. In theory a 10 % loss (even in the obese range) is supposed to make a difference. So far, I have experienced no difference. Every time I try pushing the carbs a bit (even with theoretically low glycemic index/load carbs), I am rewarded with a spike to a range that is not healthy.0 -
I don't think there's any long-term danger specifically from blood glucose because gluconeogenesis will keep glucose levels up.
The only long-term effect I'd really worry about, and so far an effect that I don't believe has been studied in humans, would be that rats on a long-term ketogenic diet can develop an intolerance to carbohydrates. Apparently the pancreas down-regulates production of insulin, so when they are re-exposed to higher carb diets, they are less able to regulate their blood sugar because they simply have less insulin to release into the bloodstream. That gives them the symptoms of insulin resistance even though their insulin sensitivity is actually normal; they simply under-produce insulin. I don't know if they've ever studied these animals long-term to see if and how the effect can be reversed.
That said, you can't ever extrapolate results from rats directly to humans - at most this gives an area where further research is needed.0 -
Your body runs on glucose! You need it to create energy, literally! (cellular respiration, the mitochondrial electron transport chain..). Sure your body could survive, but you'd be lethargic and moody. Simple sugar is the quickest way to up your energy (which is why athletes eat chocolate or energy drinks before a race!). If you want that energy to be slow-releasing then eat complex carbs that are harder to break down (sweet potato for example), take longer to digest and won't spike your blood sugar.
p.s. i'm a medical student xD don't know if you can tell...
As a medical student, your future diabetic patients will thank you if you spend some studing about both about glucogenesis, and about the impact of complex carbs on the blood sugar of someone with insulin resistance. The spike may be a bit higher with a simple carb, but the elevation above normal levels often lasts several times as long - making it more dangerous to organs impacted by elevated blood sugar (see the December 2015 study linking prediabetes to chronic kidney disease).
As far as being lethargic and moody - people around me would beg to differ. Individuals who are unaware of my change in diet (to low carb) have commented about how much healthier I seem in the last couple of months.
0 -
rankinsect wrote: »I don't think there's any long-term danger specifically from blood glucose because gluconeogenesis will keep glucose levels up.
The only long-term effect I'd really worry about, and so far an effect that I don't believe has been studied in humans, would be that rats on a long-term ketogenic diet can develop an intolerance to carbohydrates. Apparently the pancreas down-regulates production of insulin, so when they are re-exposed to higher carb diets, they are less able to regulate their blood sugar because they simply have less insulin to release into the bloodstream. That gives them the symptoms of insulin resistance even though their insulin sensitivity is actually normal; they simply under-produce insulin. I don't know if they've ever studied these animals long-term to see if and how the effect can be reversed.
That said, you can't ever extrapolate results from rats directly to humans - at most this gives an area where further research is needed.
I think that's a thing in humans too, as the advice is for low carbers to eat carbs for 3 days ahead of an OGTT test so their pancreas, enzymes and suchlike get wound up to a more normal level.0 -
@neohdiver if a T1 diabetic is dropping in to insulin shock, is there any alternative to immediately consuming a carb?
Immediately consuming a carb is quickest, most effective way I am aware of. I'm T2 - but if I ever become insulin dependent, I would see consuming carbs under that circumstance as consistent with the reason I'm currently eating low carb - to stabilize blood sugar. The purpose would be to bring the blood glucose into the normal range, rather than to keep it from going over the top - but both are to manipulate blood glucose levels by dietary control.
(My knowledge of T1 comes from the half dozen people who I grew up with who are T1, as well as more recently from people within the diabetic community who are T1 who are eating low carb to stabilize their blood sugar and decrease the amount of both basal and bolus insulin they need for control - as well as from insulin dependent T2 diabetics (more complex than non insulin-dependent T2 - but less complex than T1).)0 -
@neohdiver if a T1 diabetic is dropping in to insulin shock, is there any alternative to immediately consuming a carb?
5g of glucose is indeed a perfect resolution to hypoglycaemia. Or failing that a glucagon shot, so there is an alternative.
The type one grit folks talk about greatly reduced variability and reduced hypos.
0 -
@neohdiver if a T1 diabetic is dropping in to insulin shock, is there any alternative to immediately consuming a carb?
5g of glucose is indeed a perfect resolution to hypoglycaemia. Or failing that a glucagon shot, so there is an alternative.
The type one grit folks talk about greatly reduced variability and reduced hypos.
Hypoglycemia treatment depends from person to person and from low to low. The ADA recommends the rule of 15 (consume 15g of fast-acting CHO, wait 15 minutes, repeat with additional 15g CHO if BG levels are below 70 at the 15-minute check, repeat process until BG rises above 70 and then consume a snack with 15g long-acting CHO and protein/fat), but I find that to be way more than what most of my lows need.
Personally, I take 2-4g of fast-acting carbs (typically 4 jelly beans or skittles or 1 glucose tablet) if I'm in the 60s, 6-8 if in the 50s, 10-12 if between 45-49, and the full 15g if I'm <45 (I'd much rather over-treat the low lows, but I only see 40s maybe once every 1-2 months). I also need to account for how much insulin on board remains from my previous boluses and assess whether I need to take some CHO to cover that.
A more accurate way to figure out how many carbs to consume (especially if you're on insulin) is to divide your insulin sensitivity factor (how much one unit of insulin will drop your BG) by your insulin to carb ratio (how many carbs one unit of insulin covers) to see how much 1g of CHO will raise you by. My sensitivity factor is 1:60mg/dL, and my insulin to carb is 1:12-16 (it's 1:16 except at breakfast), so 1g of CHO will raise my BG anywhere from 3.75-5mg/dL (I go with about 4.5mg/dL). I typically shoot for enough CHO for my BG to get to at least 80mg/dL, so then all I have to do is divide the difference between my actual and target BG by how much 1g of CHO raises me to get how many CHO to consume for a low (it comes pretty close to my personal "rules", especially for the more mild lows).
Remember that glucagon only works if the person has adequate glycogen stores. If the person has been experiencing a ton of lows, already depleted all their glycogen, and is now unconscious from a low, injecting glucagon will do squat (IV dextrose on the other hand would be useful, as would rubbing some glucose gel into a person's cheeks until paramedics arrive).0 -
so this thread has brightened an otherwise dull day at work. I decided to jump onto our library database and have a look at referred journal articles in medical journals (I'm in Medline through Ovid atm) and have got a tonne of hits for my search.
I don't have the time to read medical journals as I do need to actually work, but some of the things that popped up are (I won't post all the info - just which journal it came from and a snippet of the 'results')
* American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 93(5):1062-72, 2011 May. - After 4 wk, weight-loss diets that were high in protein but reduced in total carbohydrates and fiber resulted in a significant decrease in fecal cancer-protective metabolites and increased concentrations of hazardous metabolites. Long-term adherence to such diets may increase risk of colonic disease.
* British Journal of Nutrition. 112(6):916-24, 2014 Sep 28. - Long-term safety of consuming low-carbohydrate diets (LCD) in Asian populations, whose carbohydrate intake is relatively high, is not known. In the present study, the association of LCD with CVD and total mortality was assessed using data obtained in the NIPPON DATA80 (National Integrated Project for Prospective Observation of Non-communicable Disease and Its Trends in the Aged 1980) during 29 years of follow-up. At baseline in 1980, data were collected from study participants aged > 30 years from randomly selected areas in Japan. LCD scores were calculated based on the percentage of energy as carbohydrate, fat and protein, estimated by 3 d weighed food records. A total of 9200 participants (56% women, mean age 51 years) were followed up. During the follow-up, 1171 CVD deaths (52% in women) and 3443 total deaths (48% in women) occurred. The multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for CVD mortality using the Cox model comparing the highest v. lowest deciles of LCD score was 0.60 (95% CI 0.38, 0.94; P(trend) = 0.021) for women and 0.78 (95% CI 0.58, 1.05; P(trend) = 0.079) for women and men combined; the HR for total mortality was 0.74 (95% CI 0.57, 0.95; P(trend) = 0.029) for women and 0.87 (95% CI 0.74, 1.02; P(trend) = 0.090) for women and men combined. None of the associations was statistically significant in men. No differential effects of animal-based and plant-fish-based LCD were observed. In conclusions, moderate diets lower in carbohydrate and higher in protein and fat are significantly inversely associated with CVD and total mortality in women. (this was a 29 year study in Japan)
* American Journal of Physiology - Heart & Circulatory Physiology. 307(5):H649-57, 2014 Sep 1.- High-protein-low-carbohydrate (HP-LC) diets have become widespread. Yet their deleterious consequences, especially on glucose metabolism and arteries, have already been underlined. Our previous study (2) has already shown glucose intolerance with major arterial dysfunction in very old mice subjected to an HP-LC diet. The hypothesis of this work was that this diet had an age-dependent deleterious metabolic and cardiovascular outcome. Two groups of mice, young and adult (3 and 6 mo old), were subjected for 12 wk to a standard or to an HP-LC diet. Glucose and lipid metabolism was studied. The cardiovascular system was explored from the functional stage with Doppler-echography to the molecular stage (arterial reactivity, mRNA, immunohistochemistry). Young mice did not exhibit any significant metabolic modification, whereas adult mice presented marked glucose intolerance associated with an increase in resistin and triglyceride levels. These metabolic disturbances were responsible for cardiovascular damages only in adult mice, with decreased aortic distensibility and left ventricle dysfunction. These seemed to be the consequence of arterial dysfunctions. Mesenteric arteries were the worst affected with a major oxidative stress, whereas aorta function seemed to be maintained with an appreciable role of cyclooxygenase-2 to preserve endothelial function. This study highlights for the first time the age-dependent deleterious effects of an HP-LC diet on metabolism, with glucose intolerance and lipid disorders and vascular (especially microvessels) and cardiac functions. This work shows that HP-LC lead to equivalent cardiovascular alterations, as observed in very old age, and underlines the danger of such diet. Copyright © 2014 the American Physiological Society.
and that's enough for now - these were in the top 10 results that came up.
So there has been research done on this stuff HOWEVER most of us lay people don't have access to these journals and databases because we're not academics or work at universities. I only have access to this because I work at at university. I don't claim to understand it - I'm just saying there is more research out there than we have easy access to on Google.
Try Google Scholar searches too sometimes you can get free access articles through that, most of this type of publication requires you to subscribed and pay $$$$0 -
but - apart from that negative stuff I posted above (there was more on mice/rats being not happy on LC)
there is this:
There is a significant amount of controversy related to the optimal amount of dietary carbohydrate. This review summarizes the health-related positives and negatives associated with carbohydrate restriction. On the positive side, there is substantive evidence that for many individuals, low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets can effectively promote weight loss. Low-carbohydrate diets (LCDs) also can lead to favorable changes in blood lipids (i.e., decreased triacylglycerols, increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol) and decrease the severity of hypertension. These positives should be balanced by consideration of the likelihood that LCDs often lead to decreased intakes of phytochemicals (which could increase predisposition to cardiovascular disease and cancer) and nondigestible carbohydrates (which could increase risk for disorders of the lower gastrointestinal tract). Diets restricted in carbohydrates also are likely to lead to decreased glycogen stores, which could compromise an individual's ability to maintain high levels of physical activity. LCDs that are high in saturated fat appear to raise low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and may exacerbate endothelial dysfunction. However, for the significant percentage of the population with insulin resistance or those classified as having metabolic syndrome or prediabetes, there is much experimental support for consumption of a moderately restricted carbohydrate diet (i.e., one providing approximately 26%-44 % of calories from carbohydrate) that emphasizes high-quality carbohydrate sources. This type of dietary pattern would likely lead to favorable changes in the aforementioned cardiovascular disease risk factors, while minimizing the potential negatives associated with consumption of the more restrictive LCDs. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
from - Nutrition. 30(7-8):748-54, 2014 Jul-Aug.
and
* High-fat, low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets (KD) are used for weight loss and for treatment of refractory epilepsy. Recently, short-time studies in rodents have shown that, besides their beneficial effect on body weight, KD lead to glucose intolerance and insulin resistance. However, the long-term effects on pancreatic endocrine cells are unknown. In this study we investigate the effects of long-term KD on glucose tolerance and beta- and alpha-cell mass in mice. Despite an initial weight loss, KD did not result in weight loss after 22 wk. Plasma markers associated with dyslipidemia and inflammation (cholesterol, triglycerides, leptin, monocyte chemotactic protein-1, IL-1beta, and IL-6) were increased, and KD-fed mice showed signs of hepatic steatosis after 22 wk of diet. Long-term KD resulted in glucose intolerance that was associated with insufficient insulin secretion from beta-cells. After 22 wk, insulin-stimulated glucose uptake was reduced. A reduction in beta-cell mass was observed in KD-fed mice together with an increased number of smaller islets. Also alpha-cell mass was markedly decreased, resulting in a lower alpha- to beta-cell ratio. Our data show that long-term KD causes dyslipidemia, a proinflammatory state, signs of hepatic steatosis, glucose intolerance, and a reduction in beta- and alpha-cell mass, but no weight loss. This indicates that long-term high-fat, low-carbohydrate KD lead to features that are also associated with the metabolic syndrome and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in humans.
from - American Journal of Physiology - Endocrinology & Metabolism. 306(5):E552-8, 2014 Mar 1.
and
We established a model of chronic portal vein catheterization in an awake nonhuman primate to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the metabolic response to low-carbohydrate/high-fat (LCHF; 20% carbohydrate and 65% fat) and high-carbohydrate/low-fat (HCLF; 65% carbohydrate and 20% fat) meal ingestion. Each meal was given 1 wk apart to five young adult (7.8 +/- 1.3 yr old) male baboons. A [U-13C]glucose tracer was added to the meal, and a [6,6-2H2]glucose tracer was infused systemically to assess glucose kinetics. Plasma areas under the curve (AUCs) of glucose, insulin, and C-peptide in the femoral artery and of glucose and insulin in the portal vein were higher (P < 0.05) after ingestion of the HCLF compared with the LCHF meal. Compared with the LCHF meal, the rate of appearance of ingested glucose into the portal vein and the systemic circulation was greater after the HCLF meal (P < 0.05). Endogenous glucose production decreased by ~40% after ingestion of the HCLF meal but was not affected by the LCHF meal (P < 0.05). Portal vein blood flow increased (P < 0.001) to a similar extent after consumption of either meal. In conclusion, a LCHF diet causes minimal changes in the rate of glucose appearance in both portal and systemic circulations, does not affect the rate of endogenous glucose production, and causes minimal stimulation of C-peptide and insulin. These observations demonstrate that LCHF diets cause minimal perturbations in glucose homeostasis and pancreatic beta-cell activity
from - American Journal of Physiology - Endocrinology & Metabolism. 304(4):E444-51, 2013 Feb 15. (this one is AWFUL and an example of just how animal testing is EFFED up IMO - the chimp was ALIVE while they did this but cut open....)
sorry - last one - I"m on a roll now!
Low-carbohydrate diets (LChD) have become very popular among the general population. These diets have been used to lose body weight and to ameliorate various abnormalities like diabetes, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, polycystic ovary syndrome, narcolepsy, epilepsy, and others. Reports suggest that body weight reduction and glycemic control could be attained while following LChD. However, these advantages are more notably found in short periods of time consuming an LChD. Indeed, the safety and efficacy of the latter diets in the long term have not been sufficiently explored. In contrast to what has been proposed, other mentioned pathologies are not improved or are even worsened by carbohydrate restriction. Therefore, the aim of this review is to define the concept of LChD and to explain their clinical effects in the short and long term, their influence on metabolism, and the opinion of nutrition or health authorities. Finally, evincing the research gaps of LChD that are here exposed will later allow us to reach a consensus with regard to their utilization.Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.
from - Annals of Nutrition & Metabolism. 58(4):320-34, 2011 Oct.
Enjoy
BTW - I don't function on low carb.0 -
Cahgetsfit wrote: »so this thread has brightened an otherwise dull day at work. I decided to jump onto our library database and have a look at referred journal articles in medical journals (I'm in Medline through Ovid atm) and have got a tonne of hits for my search.
I don't have the time to read medical journals as I do need to actually work, but some of the things that popped up are (I won't post all the info - just which journal it came from and a snippet of the 'results')
...
and that's enough for now - these were in the top 10 results that came up.
So there has been research done on this stuff HOWEVER most of us lay people don't have access to these journals and databases because we're not academics or work at universities. I only have access to this because I work at at university. I don't claim to understand it - I'm just saying there is more research out there than we have easy access to on Google.
Try Google Scholar searches too sometimes you can get free access articles through that, most of this type of publication requires you to subscribed and pay $$$$
As you hinted - the challenge is less that there isn't stuff out there - but understanding it (and - more critical for me - making sure the study matched what is going on currently, etc.)
The first challenge is that the categorization in these studies don't match each other and don't match the wide variation in low carb diets. Two of the studies you are high protein diets - that is less common among people currently eating low carb. The second of those is a mouse study (which can point to where research is needed, but isn't necessarily directly applicable). The current thinking is that protein consumption should be moderate (and fat relatively high) - both because many of the people eating low carb diets are insulin resistant and at risk for kidney disease (excess protein is hard on kidneys), and because fat is more easily converted to fuel than protein.
The middle study talks about "higher in protein and fat." Those are two very different diets - likely with different health implications.
These studies are typical of the longer term studies available in that they are not good matches for the current ketogenic diet - or they cover a very broad range of diets so the consequences of a low carb moderate protein diet cannot be separated from the consequences of a low carb high protein diet; and that low carb ranges from 20 gram/day (almost certainly ketogenic) to 150 grams a day (almost certainly not ketogenic) - again with no real way to separate the multiple different diets within that range.
An additional problem with the studies I have found is that their premises, particularly with respect to biases connected to dietary fat is that the biases are baked into the studies. We thought we knew, for example, that consumption of cholesterol directly contributed to serum cholesterol - so consumption of cholesterol is sometimes used as a stand-in for one aspect of risk for cardiovascular disease. We're no longer so sure it is an appropriate stand-in.
I've started doing this research. I did enough research to determine it was safe for the period during which I wanted to give eating low carb a serious try: long enough to reach a normal weight to see if my insulin resistance is connected to what I've eaten in the past (e.g. whatever packed the weight on) v. what I am currently putting in my mouth. I'll get to that point sometime late Spring or early Summer (roughly 10 months total). As to longer - what I found was that the long studies are not plentiful, and in large part either don't test low carb-moderate protein, or are so poorly designed that I can't separate out the impact of the form of low carb diet I'm following from the rest of the diets they lumped in as low carb. I'll be doing more research & hope I'll find something beyond the original mess you and I both found with a little bit of research.
0 -
@Cahgetsfit the next time you get a chance please look for 24-60 month studies of nutritional ketosis way of eating if you can find them.
Studies of less that two years have no medical value in evaluating low carb diets based on my own health markers since July 2014. My lab work numbers went in the wrong direction at first eating a macro of 5% carbs, 15% protein and 80% fats before they became better than when I was eat SAD WOE (Standard American Diet Way Of Eating).
Note I never became a diabetic but it was running on the high side of 100 more than I liked before I cut my daily carbs to <50 grams daily 15 months ago. True diabetics should never consider my posts to apply to diabetic care but there are many on MFP that are very knowledge about diet and diabetes.
@neohdiver now 15 months later I am finding I can eat more carbs without getting kicked out of ketosis but have not measured the max amount but I can eat an whole orange or apple at one time on top of my normal daily carbs from coconut, almonds, cheese, bacon, etc. Back in late 2014 or most of 2015 that was not possible. I think time can cure a lot of things and perhaps that may include an intolerance to carbs or at least I hope that is the case. 0 -
realityfades wrote: »I don't eat low carb, but I was wondering if low carb diets long term are unhealthy. I came across an NIH article that detailed how many carbs, proteins and fats each and every organ of your body requires. It said that the brain alone requires 120-130 grams of carbs a day to remain healthy. To me, that implies eating a low carb diet may be starving the organs when done long enough.
Thoughts?
This is the article for anyone interested: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22436/
[I am not debating the efficiency of low carb vs CICO for weight loss, I am talking about it's long term effects on organs]
I've been low carb for 30 years... No I side effects. I have hypoglycemia, opposite of diabetics, but our diets are about the same. The body converts protein into the necessary energy the organs and muscles need to perform. I eat high protein, have lots of energy, do cardio and strength tracings 3-5 days a week, active and healthy! Just passed my annual physical with flying colors. There may be certain health issues where low carb would not be healthy, but for most folks, it's the best way to go if you want to lose weight. I'm at my perfect weight for a 68 year old and have never felt better!0 -
realityfades wrote: »I don't eat low carb, but I was wondering if low carb diets long term are unhealthy. I came across an NIH article that detailed how many carbs, proteins and fats each and every organ of your body requires. It said that the brain alone requires 120-130 grams of carbs a day to remain healthy. To me, that implies eating a low carb diet may be starving the organs when done long enough.
Thoughts?
This is the article for anyone interested: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22436/
[I am not debating the efficiency of low carb vs CICO for weight loss, I am talking about it's long term effects on organs]
My thoughts? Don't read 13 year old academic texts. The info represents 20 year old information. You are missing a full generation of research.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions