Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Are all calories the same??
Replies
-
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring 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.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.0 -
tincanonastring 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.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.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring 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.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.0 -
Lordy, can we move on from eating rats pleeeaaase :sick:0
-
tincanonastring 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.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?
0 -
tincanonastring 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.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.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring 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.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.
0 -
Gino has a recipe (there was quite a fuss about this when it aired)
https://youtu.be/Stsy_90gKT8 0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring 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.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.0 -
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.
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.tincanonastring 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.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?
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
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.
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.tincanonastring 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.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?
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.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
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.
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.tincanonastring 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.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?
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.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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.
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.tincanonastring 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.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?
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!!!!!!!0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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.
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.tincanonastring 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.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?
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, @ClosetBayesian0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
No, they are not!
0 -
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
0 -
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.0
-
Luckily no one has ever claimed that all foods are the same.0
-
MelissaPhippsFeagins wrote: »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.
Why...why would you put broccoli in your coffee?0 -
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
Huh, you found a rare case of starvation ketoacidosis. First I have ever seen. In the vast majority of starvation cases, ketoacidosis is not a factor. It requires high ketones AND glucose. Hard to do for a typical starving person.
Those who live in nutritional ketosis do not need to worry about DKA anymore than a healthy person who eats a high carb diet (over 45%) would need to worry about glucose toxicity.0 -
I'm not much of a coffee drinker, but I have used broccoli as an alternative to breads for the purpose of soaking up juices and whatnot. Maybe she uses it like a donut. Put some glazed sugar on that thing and have at it. It's genius! The kids are going to love it.tincanonastring wrote: »MelissaPhippsFeagins wrote: »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.
Why...why would you put broccoli in your coffee?
0 -
If fiber, which isn't supposed to have calories, can be metabolized by gut bacteria to different end products, some of which can be used by human cells for energy, and some of which can't, then calories aren't all the same.
If different people (or mice) can have different rates of extraction from the same food, because of changes in the microvilli, then the calories in the original food aren't effectively the same in different bodies.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »If fiber, which isn't supposed to have calories, can be metabolized by gut bacteria to different end products, some of which can be used by human cells for energy, and some of which can't, then calories aren't all the same.
If different people (or mice) can have different rates of extraction from the same food, because of changes in the microvilli, then the calories in the original food aren't effectively the same in different bodies.
Well it is a good thing one of the points of Atwater coefficients is that fiber is thought to have calories, at least on American food labels. I have this right next to me:
Nothing but fiber, label says it has calories. Though interesting that it uses a full 4 kCal per gram, when it probably should use 2 kCal / g.
It isn't a matter of the calories being different, it is that foods are different. Gasoline has calories, in that it can be oxidized in fire to heat water, but none that a human can make use of.
Differences in gut bacteria composition's ability to recovery calories out of fiber is a topic that the board has discussed before. A mouse study seemed to indicate that scaled to humans it might change 40 or maybe it was 140 kCal a day at the extreme ends, I forget which.0 -
Exactly - when the extremes are even a minor % of the day being discussed, then the deviation by average folks from the average is about meaningless, when viewed against the inaccuracy in labels and other estimates overall.
While true, in the end it really doesn't matter. (well, except to your gut and how it feels)
https://youtu.be/rQGrQPZMLK8 0 -
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.
@tomteboda that statement is true only in the case of someone who can not produce any insulin. Medically there is no such think as carbohydrate deficiency. There and be deficiency of fats and proteins because they are required for humans to have full health.
There can be glucose and ketone bodies deficiencies but no carbs are required to make either.
0 -
GaleHawkins 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.
@tomteboda that statement is true only in the case of someone who can not produce any insulin. Medically there is no such think as carbohydrate deficiency. There and be deficiency of fats and proteins because they are required for humans to have full health.
There can be glucose and ketone bodies deficiencies but no carbs are required to make either.
Nope, it was already pointed out ketoacidosis can happen in people without Type 1 Diabetes.0 -
It happens. Its not common, then again most people don't take stuff to excess. But it *is* possible and when absolutes were brought out it needed to be pointed out.
Shah, Pankaj, and William L. Isley. "Ketoacidosis during a low-carbohydrate diet." New England Journal of Medicine 354.1 (2006): 97-98.
I am not an advocate for or against low-carbohydrate diets.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions