Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Are all calories the same??

11113151617

Replies

  • stealthqstealthq Posts: 4,307Member Member Posts: 4,307Member Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    Tell that to 18h century British sailors.

    If you're referencing scurvy, wouldn't it be just as valid to call it a rat deficiency?

    I don't know, would it? Does a lack of rats cause people to suffer from vitamin-C deficiency?

    The comment was tongue in cheek.

    Rats produce their own ascorbate, as do most mammals. Our branch of primates are one of the lucky exceptions. Theoretically, sailors could eat rats as the most likely available mammal on ship and prevent scurvy. Would there ever be enough rats available? I can't imagine there would be on any voyage long enough where scurvy is a concern.
  • snikkinssnikkins Posts: 1,282Member Member Posts: 1,282Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).

    It certainly is possible to get nutrition via supplementation, but it does tend to involve a rather precarious balancing that isn't without risk.There certainly seems to be epidemelogical data that suggest vegetable consumption reduces mortality risk from a few conditions, and that taking a multivitamin doesn't carry this benefit, implying, subtractively, there is something in vegetable consumption that isn't a vitamin that provides health benefits.

    I would say no. Ketosis is not a state of carb deficiency. It is just a different fuel. That's simply twisting the meaning - semantics.

    A diet high in vegetables can reduce mortality, but my guess is that if a diet is high in veggies it is low in grains and added sugars. My guess is those are the problems (unless one gets IR and then all carbs are potentially a concern) and if you avoid those, by replacing them with vegetables, then health improves. Low carb dieters replace grains and sugar with fat, and we are apparently healthier for it.

    Any diet that replaces low nutrient foods with high nutrient foods is going to improve your health. And except for in Paleo books, I have never seen any science that would suggest whole grains as bad for your health. On the other hand, there are TONS of studies that would suggest saturated fats are linked to CVD and higher mortality. And the ONLY time I have seen a non weight loss LCHF study suggest cholesterol improvements, is when the diet was high in veggies and unsaturated fats. So replacing added sugars with saturated fats is not going to make you healthier. Replacing added sugars with unsaturated fats, will probably make you healthier. Why, because there is a ton of research linking health improvements to monounsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and Omega 3s. Which is probably why the Mediterranean diet is one of the most recommended diets.

    http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/7/1879.abstract

    Ah, yeah, I remember Lemon already discussing that study with Yarwell. The thing mentioned about more monounsaturated, polyunsaturated, and omega 3 fats - this study did that. The experimental subjects weren't getting tons of carnivorous, saturated fat.

    Not only that, but Lemon talked about that very study in the response that was quoted.
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    Tell that to 18h century British sailors.

    If you're referencing scurvy, wouldn't it be just as valid to call it a rat deficiency?

    I don't know, would it? Does a lack of rats cause people to suffer from vitamin-C deficiency?

    The comment was tongue in cheek.

    Rats produce their own ascorbate, as do most mammals. Our branch of primates are one of the lucky exceptions. Theoretically, sailors could eat rats as the most likely available mammal on ship and prevent scurvy. Would there ever be enough rats available? I can't imagine there would be on any voyage long enough where scurvy is a concern.

    Somehow I think raw rat eating is going to cause issues just as bad as scurvy.
  • Christine_72Christine_72 Posts: 16,074Member Member Posts: 16,074Member Member
    Lordy, can we move on from eating rats pleeeaaase :sick:
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 35,214Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 35,214Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    snikkins wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).

    It certainly is possible to get nutrition via supplementation, but it does tend to involve a rather precarious balancing that isn't without risk.There certainly seems to be epidemelogical data that suggest vegetable consumption reduces mortality risk from a few conditions, and that taking a multivitamin doesn't carry this benefit, implying, subtractively, there is something in vegetable consumption that isn't a vitamin that provides health benefits.

    I would say no. Ketosis is not a state of carb deficiency. It is just a different fuel. That's simply twisting the meaning - semantics.

    A diet high in vegetables can reduce mortality, but my guess is that if a diet is high in veggies it is low in grains and added sugars. My guess is those are the problems (unless one gets IR and then all carbs are potentially a concern) and if you avoid those, by replacing them with vegetables, then health improves. Low carb dieters replace grains and sugar with fat, and we are apparently healthier for it.

    Any diet that replaces low nutrient foods with high nutrient foods is going to improve your health. And except for in Paleo books, I have never seen any science that would suggest whole grains as bad for your health. On the other hand, there are TONS of studies that would suggest saturated fats are linked to CVD and higher mortality. And the ONLY time I have seen a non weight loss LCHF study suggest cholesterol improvements, is when the diet was high in veggies and unsaturated fats. So replacing added sugars with saturated fats is not going to make you healthier. Replacing added sugars with unsaturated fats, will probably make you healthier. Why, because there is a ton of research linking health improvements to monounsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and Omega 3s. Which is probably why the Mediterranean diet is one of the most recommended diets.

    http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/7/1879.abstract

    Ah, yeah, I remember Lemon already discussing that study with Yarwell. The thing mentioned about more monounsaturated, polyunsaturated, and omega 3 fats - this study did that. The experimental subjects weren't getting tons of carnivorous, saturated fat.

    Not only that, but Lemon talked about that very study in the response that was quoted.

    This is the one that yarwell pointed me to. And I am not surprised about the results, despite being funded by Atkins. The fact is, the people on keto has high levels of mono unsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and fibrous foods. And I wasn't surprised by the results at all. I think any diet that increase those three items will show favorable results.

    The question I would have, is how many studies repeat similar results? How many studies compare keto vs moderate carbs with equal parts nutrition? And how would these results look if it wasn't just 12 white guys over a 6 week period?
  • snikkinssnikkins Posts: 1,282Member Member Posts: 1,282Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).

    It certainly is possible to get nutrition via supplementation, but it does tend to involve a rather precarious balancing that isn't without risk.There certainly seems to be epidemelogical data that suggest vegetable consumption reduces mortality risk from a few conditions, and that taking a multivitamin doesn't carry this benefit, implying, subtractively, there is something in vegetable consumption that isn't a vitamin that provides health benefits.

    I would say no. Ketosis is not a state of carb deficiency. It is just a different fuel. That's simply twisting the meaning - semantics.

    A diet high in vegetables can reduce mortality, but my guess is that if a diet is high in veggies it is low in grains and added sugars. My guess is those are the problems (unless one gets IR and then all carbs are potentially a concern) and if you avoid those, by replacing them with vegetables, then health improves. Low carb dieters replace grains and sugar with fat, and we are apparently healthier for it.

    Any diet that replaces low nutrient foods with high nutrient foods is going to improve your health. And except for in Paleo books, I have never seen any science that would suggest whole grains as bad for your health. On the other hand, there are TONS of studies that would suggest saturated fats are linked to CVD and higher mortality. And the ONLY time I have seen a non weight loss LCHF study suggest cholesterol improvements, is when the diet was high in veggies and unsaturated fats. So replacing added sugars with saturated fats is not going to make you healthier. Replacing added sugars with unsaturated fats, will probably make you healthier. Why, because there is a ton of research linking health improvements to monounsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and Omega 3s. Which is probably why the Mediterranean diet is one of the most recommended diets.

    http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/7/1879.abstract

    Ah, yeah, I remember Lemon already discussing that study with Yarwell. The thing mentioned about more monounsaturated, polyunsaturated, and omega 3 fats - this study did that. The experimental subjects weren't getting tons of carnivorous, saturated fat.

    Not only that, but Lemon talked about that very study in the response that was quoted.

    This is the one that yarwell pointed me to. And I am not surprised about the results, despite being funded by Atkins. The fact is, the people on keto has high levels of mono unsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and fibrous foods. And I wasn't surprised by the results at all. I think any diet that increase those three items will show favorable results.

    The question I would have, is how many studies repeat similar results? How many studies compare keto vs moderate carbs with equal parts nutrition? And how would these results look if it wasn't just 12 white guys over a 6 week period?

    More info on that would be great because I think you're right.

    I've noticed, at least in these parts, that ketoers tend not towards unsaturated fats and high levels of fiber.

    This leads me back to the fact that I find it fascinating what levels of risk people are willing to take, particularly when presented with research that partially or only partially confirms their biases. There are posters that I've seen that completely dismiss the research suggesting saturated fats are worth limiting but accept as truth that sugar or whole grains are a conspiracy by Big Sugar/Wheat. It is quite interesting.
  • GamlielaGamliela Posts: 2,487Member Member Posts: 2,487Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    Tell that to 18h century British sailors.

    If you're referencing scurvy, wouldn't it be just as valid to call it a rat deficiency?

    I don't know, would it? Does a lack of rats cause people to suffer from vitamin-C deficiency?

    The comment was tongue in cheek.

    Rats produce their own ascorbate, as do most mammals. Our branch of primates are one of the lucky exceptions. Theoretically, sailors could eat rats as the most likely available mammal on ship and prevent scurvy. Would there ever be enough rats available? I can't imagine there would be on any voyage long enough where scurvy is a concern.

    Somehow I think raw rat eating is going to cause issues just as bad as scurvy.

    They don't eat them raw on ships, they cook them first.
    I just think the supply of rats would go down though, eventually.

  • CurlyCockneyCurlyCockney Posts: 1,394Member Member Posts: 1,394Member Member
    Gino has a recipe (there was quite a fuss about this when it aired)
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    Tell that to 18h century British sailors.

    If you're referencing scurvy, wouldn't it be just as valid to call it a rat deficiency?

    I don't know, would it? Does a lack of rats cause people to suffer from vitamin-C deficiency?

    The comment was tongue in cheek.

    Rats produce their own ascorbate, as do most mammals. Our branch of primates are one of the lucky exceptions. Theoretically, sailors could eat rats as the most likely available mammal on ship and prevent scurvy. Would there ever be enough rats available? I can't imagine there would be on any voyage long enough where scurvy is a concern.

    Somehow I think raw rat eating is going to cause issues just as bad as scurvy.

    They don't eat them raw on ships, they cook them first.
    I just think the supply of rats would go down though, eventually.

    If you eat them cooked, you don't get the vitamin c. Cooking degrades it.
  • ForecasterJasonForecasterJason Posts: 2,582Member Member Posts: 2,582Member Member
    snikkins wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).

    It certainly is possible to get nutrition via supplementation, but it does tend to involve a rather precarious balancing that isn't without risk.There certainly seems to be epidemelogical data that suggest vegetable consumption reduces mortality risk from a few conditions, and that taking a multivitamin doesn't carry this benefit, implying, subtractively, there is something in vegetable consumption that isn't a vitamin that provides health benefits.

    I would say no. Ketosis is not a state of carb deficiency. It is just a different fuel. That's simply twisting the meaning - semantics.

    A diet high in vegetables can reduce mortality, but my guess is that if a diet is high in veggies it is low in grains and added sugars. My guess is those are the problems (unless one gets IR and then all carbs are potentially a concern) and if you avoid those, by replacing them with vegetables, then health improves. Low carb dieters replace grains and sugar with fat, and we are apparently healthier for it.

    Any diet that replaces low nutrient foods with high nutrient foods is going to improve your health. And except for in Paleo books, I have never seen any science that would suggest whole grains as bad for your health. On the other hand, there are TONS of studies that would suggest saturated fats are linked to CVD and higher mortality. And the ONLY time I have seen a non weight loss LCHF study suggest cholesterol improvements, is when the diet was high in veggies and unsaturated fats. So replacing added sugars with saturated fats is not going to make you healthier. Replacing added sugars with unsaturated fats, will probably make you healthier. Why, because there is a ton of research linking health improvements to monounsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and Omega 3s. Which is probably why the Mediterranean diet is one of the most recommended diets.

    http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/7/1879.abstract

    Ah, yeah, I remember Lemon already discussing that study with Yarwell. The thing mentioned about more monounsaturated, polyunsaturated, and omega 3 fats - this study did that. The experimental subjects weren't getting tons of carnivorous, saturated fat.

    Not only that, but Lemon talked about that very study in the response that was quoted.

    This is the one that yarwell pointed me to. And I am not surprised about the results, despite being funded by Atkins. The fact is, the people on keto has high levels of mono unsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and fibrous foods. And I wasn't surprised by the results at all. I think any diet that increase those three items will show favorable results.

    The question I would have, is how many studies repeat similar results? How many studies compare keto vs moderate carbs with equal parts nutrition? And how would these results look if it wasn't just 12 white guys over a 6 week period?
    This leads me back to the fact that I find it fascinating what levels of risk people are willing to take, particularly when presented with research that partially or only partially confirms their biases. There are posters that I've seen that completely dismiss the research suggesting saturated fats are worth limiting but accept as truth that sugar or whole grains are a conspiracy by Big Sugar/Wheat. It is quite interesting.
    Yeah, I do agree it's interesting to see. But I also think a lot of that is related to personal experiences and/or other anecdotal accounts.

  • stealthqstealthq Posts: 4,307Member Member Posts: 4,307Member Member
    snikkins wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).

    It certainly is possible to get nutrition via supplementation, but it does tend to involve a rather precarious balancing that isn't without risk.There certainly seems to be epidemelogical data that suggest vegetable consumption reduces mortality risk from a few conditions, and that taking a multivitamin doesn't carry this benefit, implying, subtractively, there is something in vegetable consumption that isn't a vitamin that provides health benefits.

    I would say no. Ketosis is not a state of carb deficiency. It is just a different fuel. That's simply twisting the meaning - semantics.

    A diet high in vegetables can reduce mortality, but my guess is that if a diet is high in veggies it is low in grains and added sugars. My guess is those are the problems (unless one gets IR and then all carbs are potentially a concern) and if you avoid those, by replacing them with vegetables, then health improves. Low carb dieters replace grains and sugar with fat, and we are apparently healthier for it.

    Any diet that replaces low nutrient foods with high nutrient foods is going to improve your health. And except for in Paleo books, I have never seen any science that would suggest whole grains as bad for your health. On the other hand, there are TONS of studies that would suggest saturated fats are linked to CVD and higher mortality. And the ONLY time I have seen a non weight loss LCHF study suggest cholesterol improvements, is when the diet was high in veggies and unsaturated fats. So replacing added sugars with saturated fats is not going to make you healthier. Replacing added sugars with unsaturated fats, will probably make you healthier. Why, because there is a ton of research linking health improvements to monounsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and Omega 3s. Which is probably why the Mediterranean diet is one of the most recommended diets.

    http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/7/1879.abstract

    Ah, yeah, I remember Lemon already discussing that study with Yarwell. The thing mentioned about more monounsaturated, polyunsaturated, and omega 3 fats - this study did that. The experimental subjects weren't getting tons of carnivorous, saturated fat.

    Not only that, but Lemon talked about that very study in the response that was quoted.

    This is the one that yarwell pointed me to. And I am not surprised about the results, despite being funded by Atkins. The fact is, the people on keto has high levels of mono unsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and fibrous foods. And I wasn't surprised by the results at all. I think any diet that increase those three items will show favorable results.

    The question I would have, is how many studies repeat similar results? How many studies compare keto vs moderate carbs with equal parts nutrition? And how would these results look if it wasn't just 12 white guys over a 6 week period?
    This leads me back to the fact that I find it fascinating what levels of risk people are willing to take, particularly when presented with research that partially or only partially confirms their biases. There are posters that I've seen that completely dismiss the research suggesting saturated fats are worth limiting but accept as truth that sugar or whole grains are a conspiracy by Big Sugar/Wheat. It is quite interesting.
    Yeah, I do agree it's interesting to see. But I also think a lot of that is related to personal experiences and/or other anecdotal accounts.

    And the relative cost the person perceives of limiting those items.

    Tell me I'll raise my risk of cancer 1% if I ever eat dates again, and I have zero problems swearing off for the rest of my life. Tell me the same except about dairy? I'll take that risk.
    edited March 2016
  • ClosetBayesianClosetBayesian Posts: 834Member Member Posts: 834Member Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).

    It certainly is possible to get nutrition via supplementation, but it does tend to involve a rather precarious balancing that isn't without risk.There certainly seems to be epidemelogical data that suggest vegetable consumption reduces mortality risk from a few conditions, and that taking a multivitamin doesn't carry this benefit, implying, subtractively, there is something in vegetable consumption that isn't a vitamin that provides health benefits.

    I would say no. Ketosis is not a state of carb deficiency. It is just a different fuel. That's simply twisting the meaning - semantics.

    A diet high in vegetables can reduce mortality, but my guess is that if a diet is high in veggies it is low in grains and added sugars. My guess is those are the problems (unless one gets IR and then all carbs are potentially a concern) and if you avoid those, by replacing them with vegetables, then health improves. Low carb dieters replace grains and sugar with fat, and we are apparently healthier for it.

    Any diet that replaces low nutrient foods with high nutrient foods is going to improve your health. And except for in Paleo books, I have never seen any science that would suggest whole grains as bad for your health. On the other hand, there are TONS of studies that would suggest saturated fats are linked to CVD and higher mortality. And the ONLY time I have seen a non weight loss LCHF study suggest cholesterol improvements, is when the diet was high in veggies and unsaturated fats. So replacing added sugars with saturated fats is not going to make you healthier. Replacing added sugars with unsaturated fats, will probably make you healthier. Why, because there is a ton of research linking health improvements to monounsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and Omega 3s. Which is probably why the Mediterranean diet is one of the most recommended diets.

    http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/7/1879.abstract

    Ah, yeah, I remember Lemon already discussing that study with Yarwell. The thing mentioned about more monounsaturated, polyunsaturated, and omega 3 fats - this study did that. The experimental subjects weren't getting tons of carnivorous, saturated fat.

    Not only that, but Lemon talked about that very study in the response that was quoted.

    This is the one that yarwell pointed me to. And I am not surprised about the results, despite being funded by Atkins. The fact is, the people on keto has high levels of mono unsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and fibrous foods. And I wasn't surprised by the results at all. I think any diet that increase those three items will show favorable results.

    The question I would have, is how many studies repeat similar results? How many studies compare keto vs moderate carbs with equal parts nutrition? And how would these results look if it wasn't just 12 white guys over a 6 week period?
    This leads me back to the fact that I find it fascinating what levels of risk people are willing to take, particularly when presented with research that partially or only partially confirms their biases. There are posters that I've seen that completely dismiss the research suggesting saturated fats are worth limiting but accept as truth that sugar or whole grains are a conspiracy by Big Sugar/Wheat. It is quite interesting.
    Yeah, I do agree it's interesting to see. But I also think a lot of that is related to personal experiences and/or other anecdotal accounts.

    And the relative cost the person perceives of limiting those items.

    Tell me I'll raise my risk of cancer 1% if I ever eat dates again, and I have zero problems swearing off for the rest of my life. Tell me the same except about dairy? I'll take that risk.

    Truth. On that note, going to see if I have enough change to get a Diet Coke out of the soda machine.
  • tincanonastringtincanonastring Posts: 3,969Member Member Posts: 3,969Member Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).

    It certainly is possible to get nutrition via supplementation, but it does tend to involve a rather precarious balancing that isn't without risk.There certainly seems to be epidemelogical data that suggest vegetable consumption reduces mortality risk from a few conditions, and that taking a multivitamin doesn't carry this benefit, implying, subtractively, there is something in vegetable consumption that isn't a vitamin that provides health benefits.

    I would say no. Ketosis is not a state of carb deficiency. It is just a different fuel. That's simply twisting the meaning - semantics.

    A diet high in vegetables can reduce mortality, but my guess is that if a diet is high in veggies it is low in grains and added sugars. My guess is those are the problems (unless one gets IR and then all carbs are potentially a concern) and if you avoid those, by replacing them with vegetables, then health improves. Low carb dieters replace grains and sugar with fat, and we are apparently healthier for it.

    Any diet that replaces low nutrient foods with high nutrient foods is going to improve your health. And except for in Paleo books, I have never seen any science that would suggest whole grains as bad for your health. On the other hand, there are TONS of studies that would suggest saturated fats are linked to CVD and higher mortality. And the ONLY time I have seen a non weight loss LCHF study suggest cholesterol improvements, is when the diet was high in veggies and unsaturated fats. So replacing added sugars with saturated fats is not going to make you healthier. Replacing added sugars with unsaturated fats, will probably make you healthier. Why, because there is a ton of research linking health improvements to monounsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and Omega 3s. Which is probably why the Mediterranean diet is one of the most recommended diets.

    http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/7/1879.abstract

    Ah, yeah, I remember Lemon already discussing that study with Yarwell. The thing mentioned about more monounsaturated, polyunsaturated, and omega 3 fats - this study did that. The experimental subjects weren't getting tons of carnivorous, saturated fat.

    Not only that, but Lemon talked about that very study in the response that was quoted.

    This is the one that yarwell pointed me to. And I am not surprised about the results, despite being funded by Atkins. The fact is, the people on keto has high levels of mono unsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and fibrous foods. And I wasn't surprised by the results at all. I think any diet that increase those three items will show favorable results.

    The question I would have, is how many studies repeat similar results? How many studies compare keto vs moderate carbs with equal parts nutrition? And how would these results look if it wasn't just 12 white guys over a 6 week period?
    This leads me back to the fact that I find it fascinating what levels of risk people are willing to take, particularly when presented with research that partially or only partially confirms their biases. There are posters that I've seen that completely dismiss the research suggesting saturated fats are worth limiting but accept as truth that sugar or whole grains are a conspiracy by Big Sugar/Wheat. It is quite interesting.
    Yeah, I do agree it's interesting to see. But I also think a lot of that is related to personal experiences and/or other anecdotal accounts.

    And the relative cost the person perceives of limiting those items.

    Tell me I'll raise my risk of cancer 1% if I ever eat dates again, and I have zero problems swearing off for the rest of my life. Tell me the same except about dairy? I'll take that risk.

    Truth. On that note, going to see if I have enough change to get a Diet Coke out of the soda machine.

    But the aspartame!!!!!!!
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingItAlyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,684Member Member Posts: 4,684Member Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?

    My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.
    yarwell wrote: »
    UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
    recommended 5 A DAY."

    What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?

    There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.

    No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.

    I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).

    It certainly is possible to get nutrition via supplementation, but it does tend to involve a rather precarious balancing that isn't without risk.There certainly seems to be epidemelogical data that suggest vegetable consumption reduces mortality risk from a few conditions, and that taking a multivitamin doesn't carry this benefit, implying, subtractively, there is something in vegetable consumption that isn't a vitamin that provides health benefits.

    I would say no. Ketosis is not a state of carb deficiency. It is just a different fuel. That's simply twisting the meaning - semantics.

    A diet high in vegetables can reduce mortality, but my guess is that if a diet is high in veggies it is low in grains and added sugars. My guess is those are the problems (unless one gets IR and then all carbs are potentially a concern) and if you avoid those, by replacing them with vegetables, then health improves. Low carb dieters replace grains and sugar with fat, and we are apparently healthier for it.

    Any diet that replaces low nutrient foods with high nutrient foods is going to improve your health. And except for in Paleo books, I have never seen any science that would suggest whole grains as bad for your health. On the other hand, there are TONS of studies that would suggest saturated fats are linked to CVD and higher mortality. And the ONLY time I have seen a non weight loss LCHF study suggest cholesterol improvements, is when the diet was high in veggies and unsaturated fats. So replacing added sugars with saturated fats is not going to make you healthier. Replacing added sugars with unsaturated fats, will probably make you healthier. Why, because there is a ton of research linking health improvements to monounsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and Omega 3s. Which is probably why the Mediterranean diet is one of the most recommended diets.

    http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/7/1879.abstract

    Ah, yeah, I remember Lemon already discussing that study with Yarwell. The thing mentioned about more monounsaturated, polyunsaturated, and omega 3 fats - this study did that. The experimental subjects weren't getting tons of carnivorous, saturated fat.

    Not only that, but Lemon talked about that very study in the response that was quoted.

    This is the one that yarwell pointed me to. And I am not surprised about the results, despite being funded by Atkins. The fact is, the people on keto has high levels of mono unsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and fibrous foods. And I wasn't surprised by the results at all. I think any diet that increase those three items will show favorable results.

    The question I would have, is how many studies repeat similar results? How many studies compare keto vs moderate carbs with equal parts nutrition? And how would these results look if it wasn't just 12 white guys over a 6 week period?
    This leads me back to the fact that I find it fascinating what levels of risk people are willing to take, particularly when presented with research that partially or only partially confirms their biases. There are posters that I've seen that completely dismiss the research suggesting saturated fats are worth limiting but accept as truth that sugar or whole grains are a conspiracy by Big Sugar/Wheat. It is quite interesting.
    Yeah, I do agree it's interesting to see. But I also think a lot of that is related to personal experiences and/or other anecdotal accounts.

    And the relative cost the person perceives of limiting those items.

    Tell me I'll raise my risk of cancer 1% if I ever eat dates again, and I have zero problems swearing off for the rest of my life. Tell me the same except about dairy? I'll take that risk.

    Truth. On that note, going to see if I have enough change to get a Diet Coke out of the soda machine.

    But the aspartame!!!!!!!

    RIP, @ClosetBayesian
  • tomtebodatomteboda Posts: 2,176Member Member Posts: 2,176Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).

    I believe ketoacidosis, whether induced by diabetes or poor nutrition, can be fatal and has been recorded. Ketoacidosis is the extreme state brought about by carbohydrate deficiency.
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,031Member Member Posts: 12,031Member Member
    tomteboda wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).

    I believe ketoacidosis, whether induced by diabetes or poor nutrition, can be fatal and has been recorded. Ketoacidosis is the extreme state brought about by carbohydrate deficiency.

    Ketoacidosis will not be brought on by poor nutrition. Ever. DKA is a life threatening state caused by high glucose and high ketone levels, usually 10+ times higher than what people achieve by restricting carbohydrates, or by fasting for days or weeks.

    Some cases of extreme alcoholism can also, infrequently, lead to ketoacidosis, but simply restricting carbohydrates will not. In fact ketosis is a safe state for T1Ds, and T2Ds, to live in; it is helpful because it reduces insulin needs.
    edited March 2016
  • Yi5hedr3Yi5hedr3 Posts: 2,704Member, Premium Member Posts: 2,704Member, Premium Member
    No, they are not! :)
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).

    I believe ketoacidosis, whether induced by diabetes or poor nutrition, can be fatal and has been recorded. Ketoacidosis is the extreme state brought about by carbohydrate deficiency.

    Ketoacidosis will not be brought on by poor nutrition. Ever. DKA is a life threatening state caused by high glucose and high ketone levels, usually 10+ times higher than what people achieve by restricting carbohydrates, or by fasting for days or weeks.

    Some cases of extreme alcoholism can also, infrequently, lead to ketoacidosis, but simply restricting carbohydrates will not. In fact ketosis is a safe state for T1Ds, and T2Ds, to live in; it is helpful because it reduces insulin needs.

    You can get Ketoacidosis without alcoholism and without diabetes:
    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12937-015-0076-2
  • MelissaPhippsFeaginsMelissaPhippsFeagins Posts: 8,218Member Member Posts: 8,218Member Member
    All calories are the same, but all foods are not. Steamed broccoli worth 40 calories gives me different nutrients than 40 calories of Half and Half. I still put the half and half in my coffee, but I know it's not broccoli.
Sign In or Register to comment.