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.
Low carb and vegetables
Options
Replies
-
What is the standard veg consumption to take your diet from "terrible" to "acceptable"?lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »If one ate fewer veg before going low carb (and limiting veg), one ate a ridiculously poor diet and is not a good example.
Yes, lots of Americans eat a poor diet. This is not a recommendation.
Nope. It's not. That said, many folks vastly improve their diets when they begin eating low carb. And, yes, many eat more plant foods than the folks who tell them a low carb diet isn't healthy. That's part of the irony.
I just think it's weird to eat so few veg that you eat more by going low carb. Super weird.
I agree. Yet MANY folks on here eat virtually no vegetables.
Agreed, but that's an issue with the SAD. Not a reason to promote low carb.
Agreed. I don't think I've ever seen it as a reason to promote low carb. Rather, I've seen it as a surprise result of going low carb for individuals.
If someone eats so few veg that one increases by going low carb one is not health conscious and has a terrible diet.
I think eating the recommended veg consumption is acceptable -- something like 5 servings per day. It's weird so few do.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
So one can eat 200 grams of veg (half of the WHO's "five a day") and take in less than 10g of carbohydrate, with a blood sugar impact equivalent to 2 grams of glucose or less. My n=1 experience of this is that a typical "meat and two veg" low carb meal accompanied by a glass of dry wine has literally zero effect on my blood sugar level measured continuously.
I propose that eating a low carbohydrate diet, even a ketogenic diet, is entirely compatible with vegetable consumption although obviously one has to avoid / limit the higher starch or sweeter root veg.
You know you're cheating with the wine, right?
No, the effect is the same with or without the wine, but I'm aware that alcohol is even higher than in the "*kitten* I need to dispose of fast" list than carbs as far as the liver is concerned.
It is not likely the same with or without the wine. The liver has a one-track mind and prioritizes processing alcohol. While it is processing alcohol, it is NOT engaged in gluconeogenesis (turning stored glycogen into glucose) and dumping it into your bloodstream. That background level of glucose, added by your liver to keep you from having hypos when you aren't eating, vanishes temporarily.
(Here's a start for you: "In the fasting state the body has two major mechanisms for maintaining blood glucose levels. The first is the breakdown of glycogen (glycogenolysis) and the second is the production of glucose or gluconeogenesis. Glycogen is stored in the tissues particularly the liver. It serves as the first line of defence against hypoglycaemia as it is broken down into glucose and is secreted by the liver into the blood to maintain normal blood glucose levels. Glycogen stores may be depleted in someone with type 1 diabetes particularly if they have repeated episodes of hypoglycaemia. Gluconeogenesis also occurs primarily in the liver and it involves the formation of glucose from non-carbohydrate sources.
As 90-95% of alcohol is metabolised in the liver it shuts down the process of gluconeogenesis and thus the bodies second line of defence against hypoglycaemia. Therefore, alcohol tends to increase the risk of hypoglycaemia by impairing hepatic glucose release." https://www.inmo.ie/MagazineArticle/PrintArticle/11463) {In other words, alcohol drops your blood glucose level, and it is already too low you may become hypoglycemic}
I discovered it accidentally - when I had a very sweet wine that should have sent my blood glucose spiking, but lowered it instead. Twice. So I started researching to figure out what the heck was going on (and have tested it in more detail since then - normally I can tolerate ~20 carbs; with a glass of wine I can tolerate ~50).
That's fascinating. What exactly happens to the carbs, though? Do you think it may cause a delayed sudden response or is the process simply slowed down and stretched out to where it causes little response?
The carbs are still there, doing their thing in the normal time frame. No slow down - they are normally processed via the mouth, stomach, and small intestines (not the liver - the carb interaction with the liver comes later as glucose not needed for energy gets stored in the liver as glycogen for future use). That part of the process doesn't change. What changes is the additive effect of the liver's contribution.
Simplifying it a bit, the glucose in your bloodstream comes from (at least) two sources: glucose sent out by your liver via the process of gluconeogenesis (Quantity A) and the conversion of carbs into glucose via digestion (Quantity B ). The first source (the liver) just shuts off for a while, while the liver "enjoys" the alcohol. The second source (digestion of carbs and absorption into the bloodstream via the stomach and small intestines) just keeps on truckin' at its normal pace. So, as long as your liver is otherwise occupied, what you have circulating is only Quantity B (rather than Quantity A+B). It's sort of like you already have a cup 2/3 of water (the liver puts out enough all the time to keep it at that level to keep you from going hypo). You normally can pour in another 1/3 cup before it spills over the top (your BG goes too high). Drinking alcohol is like shutting off the liver's glucose spigot - you can not only pour in the 1/3 cup of water you normally can (carb-created glucose) - but you can also pour (eat) another 2/3 cups of water) carb=created glucose on top of that before it spills over. {This is a simplified analogy being used to explain a fairly complex process - so please don't go bananas about the precise details.)
That's what the research suggested - and I tested for 5 hours after the first sip of wine, just to make sure I hadn't missed something - and I never had the spike I expected from consuming around 50 carbs (when my normal limit is 20).
If this intrigues you, and alcohol is not contraindicated for other reasons, try it and see. Your numbers may not match mine -but the effect should be similar. I rarely drink - but I do plan on taking advantage of this effect to occasionally have a piece of bread on a special occasion. (I also took advantage of it about a month ago when I was traveling, and the group I was with chose to eat at a small restaurant with no nutritional information. It gave me a bit of leeway in case I underestimated the carb content of the meal.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
True, but the same thing could be said about a CICO model. Actually, I think you could make an argument that by eliminating some food choices, you are in effect promoting others.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »If one ate fewer veg before going low carb (and limiting veg), one ate a ridiculously poor diet and is not a good example.
Yes, lots of Americans eat a poor diet. This is not a recommendation.
Nope. It's not. That said, many folks vastly improve their diets when they begin eating low carb. And, yes, many eat more plant foods than the folks who tell them a low carb diet isn't healthy. That's part of the irony.
I just think it's weird to eat so few veg that you eat more by going low carb. Super weird.
I agree. Yet MANY folks on here eat virtually no vegetables.
Agreed, but that's an issue with the SAD. Not a reason to promote low carb.
You would be promoting "anything that is not what you're cutting out". Which is not just vegetables but also for more than just a few people stuff like pouring coconut oil in their morning coffee and bacon with everything.
Agreed, I think.
Bacon is good, yes?
Bacon is okay but not particularly healthy.
Blasphemy!
But seriously, to more adequately address @stevencloser 's comment. Yes, by removing one of the options, you essentially increase the probability of the remaining options becoming the chosen food for a given meal. Of course, someone who is particularly adverse to veggies might still choose to abstain from them, but others who are veggie-agnostic (you know what I mean) are more likely to make use of that remaining option rather than abstaining from them unnecessarily.
ETA: And I also agree that someone with a particular fondness for other non-excluded foods would not be specifically limited by the parameters of most low carb diets from eating them in excess (although most recommend that you can eat as much as you want and not necessarily as much as you can).
My impression is that those drawn to low carbing are those who tend to be anti veg. Eating more veg after adopting a low carb diet demonstrates that you were eating a ridiculously low level of veg before.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »If one ate fewer veg before going low carb (and limiting veg), one ate a ridiculously poor diet and is not a good example.
Yes, lots of Americans eat a poor diet. This is not a recommendation.
Nope. It's not. That said, many folks vastly improve their diets when they begin eating low carb. And, yes, many eat more plant foods than the folks who tell them a low carb diet isn't healthy. That's part of the irony.
+1 I follow lower carb just because I feel better when I eat. for me, that's lots of vegetables and lean meat with some lower carb fruit. if you substitute broccoli for a baked potato that's lower carb... potatoes are not bad for you in and of themselves but all things in moderation right?0 -
If you had to cut out potatoes to eat vegetables, you had a crap diet and don't eat right.0
-
@lemurcat12 I find that an interesting impression. I would say that most are probably anti-grain and sugar.
I can eat 10 servings in a day of veggies from the list posted by @yarwell even if I were on a 20g/day limit. A lot of lower carb diets allow up to 100g with a bit of a blured line up to 150.0 -
I find this discussion really interesting to read. If someone asked me how to do a low carb diet I'd say: protein (meat) and veg with every meal.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »I eat more fruits (berries/melon/grapefruit) and veggies following LC than I normally did following a SAD.
That always wondered me. By definition you have less of a window to allow for fruit and veggies on LC yet so many say they only started really eating them once they started LC.
If I have bacon, eggs and hashbrowns for breakfast that doesn't leave much room (volume) for anything else. So now that I cut out the carbs from the hashbrowns I replaced them with the carbs from fruit. Instead of cake for dessert I'll have 100g of strawberries with whipped cream.
Instead of mashed potatoes I have cauliflower mash, rice was replaced with cauliflower rice mixed with konjac rice. When Pasta is needed to carry a dish, I use zoodles etc.
If I'm still hungry and have no calories/macros left, I'll have lettuce with vinegarette to fill me up.
lettuce and vinaigrette still have calories though.0 -
I eat a lower carb diet.
Have wholegrain basmati rice in a meal after a heavy lifting session but always lots of varied stir-fries with my tuna or steaks. Stir-fries cooked with coconut oil (refined version) and a dash of teriyaki sauce...yum!
I love potatoes but I need to hold back on the starchy carbs, the leafy veg you can eat mountains of, or mega salads.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I find this discussion really interesting to read. If someone asked me how to do a low carb diet I'd say: protein (meat) and veg with every meal.
I wouldn't go as far as "with every meal". At least not in any reasonable portions. There simply is not enough carbs in the typical 20 net carb keto plan to accommodate a reasonable portion with every meal, unless you severely limit the vegetable choices or their portions. Now a 50 gram net carbs plan would be more reasonable. Here is a snack I had today:
Clearly eating a tomato and a green beans would not be the best choices for vegetables since that would consume 16 grams of net carbs, even though they are not starchy or high carb per se. If you had cheese or a few nuts on that day, you're basically done for the day and can't fit in any more vegetables.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Nope. It's not. That said, many folks vastly improve their diets when they begin eating low carb. And, yes, many eat more plant foods than the folks who tell them a low carb diet isn't healthy. That's part of the irony.
Even before I started low carb, and was only eating a few servings of vegetables a day, I was amazed at how many vegetarian friends I had who ate almost no non-starchy vegetables, no leafy greens, nothing cruciferous, no peppers, only potatoes, corn, legumes, soy products and tomato sauce in the form of spaghetti or cheese pizza.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I find this discussion really interesting to read. If someone asked me how to do a low carb diet I'd say: protein (meat) and veg with every meal.
I wouldn't go as far as "with every meal". At least not in any reasonable portions. There simply is not enough carbs in the typical 20 net carb keto plan to accommodate a reasonable portion with every meal, unless you severely limit the vegetable choices or their portions. Now a 50 gram net carbs plan would be more reasonable. Here is a snack I had today:
Clearly eating a tomato and a green beans would not be the best choices for vegetables since that would consume 16 grams of net carbs, even though they are not starchy or high carb per se. If you had cheese or a few nuts on that day, you're basically done for the day and can't fit in any more vegetables.
Edited to add: Ignore this. I see where your fiber is located.
Although tomatoes are fairly high in sugar, the entry that you used for tomato isn't counting the fiber that is in 160 grams of tomato. That's one of the pitfalls of MFP. Not everyone enters data into the database accurately. Or maybe I'm looking at the wrong column. I think there are at least two grams of fiber in that much tomato.
0 -
lithezebra wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I find this discussion really interesting to read. If someone asked me how to do a low carb diet I'd say: protein (meat) and veg with every meal.
I wouldn't go as far as "with every meal". At least not in any reasonable portions. There simply is not enough carbs in the typical 20 net carb keto plan to accommodate a reasonable portion with every meal, unless you severely limit the vegetable choices or their portions. Now a 50 gram net carbs plan would be more reasonable. Here is a snack I had today:
Clearly eating a tomato and a green beans would not be the best choices for vegetables since that would consume 16 grams of net carbs, even though they are not starchy or high carb per se. If you had cheese or a few nuts on that day, you're basically done for the day and can't fit in any more vegetables.
Edited to add: Ignore this. I see where your fiber is located.
Although tomatoes are fairly high in sugar, the entry that you used for tomato isn't counting the fiber that is in 160 grams of tomato. That's one of the pitfalls of MFP. Not everyone enters data into the database accurately. Or maybe I'm looking at the wrong column. I think there are at least two grams of fiber in that much tomato.
Fiber is the last column. Net carbs would be 17 grams.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I routinely eat 50 g / day in fruits and veg (more veg). I really don't get how people think they can eat lots of veg while keto-ing -- apparently they have a different standard.
You eat 50 grams a day total, or 50 grams a day of fruit and 50 grams a day of vegetables, or you consider 50 grams of a vegetable to be one serving?
I consider about 100 grams of a vegetable to be a serving and aim for about 550 grams of vegetables a day. I'm converting loosely from pounds. To keep it low carb, I don't eat things like carrots, potatoes and corn. Even in my bad old days, when I wasn't low carbing, I was eating at least 200 grams of vegetables a day, plus a few pieces of fruit.
Anyway, my diary is open, although some of my veggie entries are recipes, which don't reflect the ingredients. (There's a stew I'm having for dinner that is mostly fermented cabbage, tomato sauce, and meat). Most of my carbs today came from eating muesli. I'm doing low carb, not keto, but if I skipped the muesli, my net carbs would be low enough for keto.
0 -
I'm on the lower carb spectrum and I eat fruit and veggies nearly everyday. If my carbs tip over 100g because of them I don't worry about it. Plus I NEED my fibre.
I would never, ever change to a carnivore diet :noway: I'm an advocate of including plenty of fruit and veg in our diet, and it makes me sad when people freak out because they ate an apple or had "too much" broccoli or cauliflower etc0 -
lithezebra wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I routinely eat 50 g / day in fruits and veg (more veg). I really don't get how people think they can eat lots of veg while keto-ing -- apparently they have a different standard.
You eat 50 grams a day total, or 50 grams a day of fruit and 50 grams a day of vegetables, or you consider 50 grams of a vegetable to be one serving?
Yeah, that was confusing. I was thinking of sugar grams -- I often eat about 50 grams of sugar from fruit and veg (mostly veg). (My diary is open too, but I'm not the best logger lately.)I consider about 100 grams of a vegetable to be a serving and aim for about 550 grams of vegetables a day. I'm converting loosely from pounds. To keep it low carb, I don't eat things like carrots, potatoes and corn. Even in my bad old days, when I wasn't low carbing, I was eating at least 200 grams of vegetables a day, plus a few pieces of fruit.
That seems reasonable. I try to eat about 200 g/meal, sometimes more, sometimes less. I don't consider potatoes and corn to be veg -- they are the starch course. I don't limit carrots, though -- that's the kind of thing that I think is wacky about low carbing.
Anyway, as I've said many times I think you can do a healthy low carb diet (especially when toward the higher carb end). I just think it's crazy how super low carb/carnivore and eating no veg tends to be promoted by some low carbers on MFP.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »If you had to cut out potatoes to eat vegetables, you had a crap diet and don't eat right.
Some people eat potatoes AS a vegetable. I said I prefer MORE vegetables and LESS starch. Hence the'everything in moderation' part of my post.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Anyway, as I've said many times I think you can do a healthy low carb diet (especially when toward the higher carb end). I just think it's crazy how super low carb/carnivore and eating no veg tends to be promoted by some low carbers on MFP.
You have also said many times that if you eat more veggies with low carb than you did without then you had a terrible diet. The two statements seem to be somewhat contradictive.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Anyway, as I've said many times I think you can do a healthy low carb diet (especially when toward the higher carb end). I just think it's crazy how super low carb/carnivore and eating no veg tends to be promoted by some low carbers on MFP.
You have also said many times that if you eat more veggies with low carb than you did without then you had a terrible diet. The two statements seem to be somewhat contradictive.
Nope. if you ate so few veg that low carbing resulted in an increase, your diet sucked.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Anyway, as I've said many times I think you can do a healthy low carb diet (especially when toward the higher carb end). I just think it's crazy how super low carb/carnivore and eating no veg tends to be promoted by some low carbers on MFP.
You have also said many times that if you eat more veggies with low carb than you did without then you had a terrible diet. The two statements seem to be somewhat contradictive.
Nope. if you ate so few veg that low carbing resulted in an increase, your diet sucked.
But if low carb can be healthy, isn't it possible that one's diet before low carb could have been only slightly less healthy, or is it your contention that low carb diets are so low on the threshold of healthy that anything less would automatically indicate a terrible diet that sucks? Is there any middle ground, and of so, are low carb diets automatically excluded from that zone?
ETA: Also, by your standard of 5 servings of vegetables per day being acceptable; it has already been stated that one could actually get double that while limiting themselves to 20g carbs per day.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions