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 diets that drastically reduce one of the macros sustainable if there's no medical necessity?
distinctlybeautiful
Posts: 1,041 Member
When I say diet, I just mean food intake. When I say sustainable, I guess I'm not sure just exactly how long I mean.. let's say years.
0
Replies
-
Depends on preference and macro. Low protein or low fat diets are a bad idea. Low carb can be sustained for a long time without health issues.
6 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Depends on preference and macro. Low protein or low fat diets are a bad idea. Low carb can be sustained for a long time without health issues.
Agreed. I think sustainability of low carb just boils down to personal preference.2 -
There's a large window of macro distributions that are still healthily doable, thanks to humans being so adaptable.3
-
stevencloser wrote: »There's a large window of macro distributions that are still healthily doable, thanks to humans being so adaptable.
Yes, this.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Depends on preference and macro. Low protein or low fat diets are a bad idea. Low carb can be sustained for a long time without health issues.
Why?1 -
paulgads82 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Depends on preference and macro. Low protein or low fat diets are a bad idea. Low carb can be sustained for a long time without health issues.
Why?
Why what?
Why are low fat and low protein diets a bad idea. Or why can low carb be sustained for a long time?
Low fat diets (barring certain medical conditions) tend to not provide sufficient fats for normal hormonal production and metabolic function. Basically you need fats to absorb vitamins, to function normally, to repair tissue. If you under eat fats long term (as studies in the 70-80s showed) you will damage your body.
Low protein diets will result in loss of lean body mass - generally when we loss weight we are trying to keep or minimise the loss of muscle, bones, connective tissue. Eating insufficient protein long term will also have a negative impact on liver function, metabolism, etc...
We can go into specific details, those are just summaries.
As to carbs, a variety of low to high carb diets exist - and aside from possible benefits that these may or may not deliver one can cut carbs without significant issues.
For the actual numbers of what makes up the recommended diet - take a look at
ttp://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets
7 -
Sorry I should have been clear, I was just interested in the low carb part.0
-
paulgads82 wrote: »Sorry I should have been clear, I was just interested in the low carb part.
Ok, that's a big subject - there are a lot of people here that have LC as a way of eating and probably have a better set of science articles on the absence of issues (there is even some support that LC can have positive impact on inflammation and certain disease management). I've yet to see a study that demonstrates long term issues with LC eating (if fats and total cals are kept reasonable). The only real issue is energy availability for intense activity like sprinting, etc...
If you are interested in LC - there are two or three groups here that can address answers better - I'm just looking at the way of eating as an experiment in some near future.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Depends on preference and macro. Low protein or low fat diets are a bad idea. Low carb can be sustained for a long time without health issues.
Umm..not quite. There are several problems associated with low carb diets:
-Increases insulin resistance.
-Thyroid problems.
-Digestive issues. Lower in fiber. Slowed digestion.
-Low energy, which can impact ability to maintain an active lifestyle.
-Typically high in saturated fat, which raises cholesterol, which can increase risk of cardiovascular disease.
-Eliminates or limits starchy gut healthy foods like potatoes, beans, grains etc which leads to poor colon health.
-Most carby foods like fruits, starchy veg, potatoes, grains, beans etc are nutrient dense. Fats in and of themselves have few to no vitamins and minerals. So a higher fat, lower carb diet is less nutrient dense.
-Typically higher in meat which can contribute to inflammation issues.
-etc.
2 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Sorry I should have been clear, I was just interested in the low carb part.
Ok, that's a big subject - there are a lot of people here that have LC as a way of eating and probably have a better set of science articles on the absence of issues (there is even some support that LC can have positive impact on inflammation and certain disease management). I've yet to see a study that demonstrates long term issues with LC eating (if fats and total cals are kept reasonable). The only real issue is energy availability for intense activity like sprinting, etc...
If you are interested in LC - there are two or three groups here that can address answers better - I'm just looking at the way of eating as an experiment in some near future.
I've tried low carb as an experiment. I was exceptionally sleepy and moody. Not for me! Was just interested in the arguments for long term LC.2 -
Traveler120 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Depends on preference and macro. Low protein or low fat diets are a bad idea. Low carb can be sustained for a long time without health issues.
Umm..not quite. There are several problems associated with low carb diets:
-Increases insulin resistance.
-Thyroid problems.
-Digestive issues. Lower in fiber. Slowed digestion.
-Low energy, which can impact ability to maintain an active lifestyle.
-Typically high in saturated fat, which raises cholesterol, which can increase risk of cardiovascular disease.
-Eliminates or limits starchy gut healthy foods like potatoes, beans, grains etc which leads to poor colon health.
-Most carby foods like fruits, starchy veg, potatoes, grains, beans etc are nutrient dense. Fats in and of themselves have few to no vitamins and minerals. So a higher fat, lower carb diet is less nutrient dense.
-Typically higher in meat which can contribute to inflammation issues.
-etc.
Some individuals don't do low carb well.
However let's look at your claims. Note - I'm not a general proponent of LC - I consider it's primary failure is that it is too restrictive of food choices.
-Increases insulin resistance - there's some evidence for decreased IR in LC diets (and why some people recommend them for PCOS, etc...)
See improved IR in obese women: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15047685
- Thyroid problems - Have not seen reports of this, please clarify
- Digestive issues - sure, some people see digestive issues in diet change, specific to LC?
- Low energy - apparently people transitioning to low carb do seem to see low energy but this also appears to be something that clear up after a few thats to a week.
- "Saturated fat which raises cholesterol" is now something that is challenged, however some people do show poor cholesterol profiles with LC and others do not.
- any diet that is restrictive may result in nutrient issues and something to consider when going LC but there it doesn't mean one can't have a nutrient rich LC diet. I agree that this might be a concern for some.
Inflammation in diet is a vast subject - claims from meat, wheat, fruit, carbs, certain vegetables, diary, nuts all exist. Articles published showing reduced inflammation and others show increased inflammation with LC or HC.
4 -
paulgads82 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Sorry I should have been clear, I was just interested in the low carb part.
Ok, that's a big subject - there are a lot of people here that have LC as a way of eating and probably have a better set of science articles on the absence of issues (there is even some support that LC can have positive impact on inflammation and certain disease management). I've yet to see a study that demonstrates long term issues with LC eating (if fats and total cals are kept reasonable). The only real issue is energy availability for intense activity like sprinting, etc...
If you are interested in LC - there are two or three groups here that can address answers better - I'm just looking at the way of eating as an experiment in some near future.
I've tried low carb as an experiment. I was exceptionally sleepy and moody. Not for me! Was just interested in the arguments for long term LC.
How long did you try it?
I've seen people on the LC camp argue that there is a transition period and that one needs to stick to it for xx days to get though the sleepy/moody part. They also argue that if one ends up being inconsistent one can get "stuck" in that sleepy/moody part.
I'm a bit unsure - my own personal experience was that it aggravated things for me (sleepy/moody plus depression) but the same happens to me on HC diets.
It's hard to separate the hype from truth for arguments FOR a diet, especially since many people follow their own dietary way as the One True Way. I was addressing here the arguments AGAINST reducing fat or protein below a certain level. Those for carbs, tend to be less specific.
0 -
Seems an odd question in the OP - it's either sustainable or it isn't. The "medical necessity" just makes the consequences different.1
-
LC may be sustainable but I don't see the reason for it without a medical condition.2
-
TheDevastator wrote: »LC may be sustainable but I don't see the reason for it without a medical condition.
Personal preference is reason enough for choosing a WOE.
Some people see performance improvements in endurance running.
0 -
TheDevastator wrote: »LC may be sustainable but I don't see the reason for it without a medical condition.
Personal preference is reason enough for choosing a WOE.
Some people see performance improvements in endurance running.
0 -
TheDevastator wrote: »LC may be sustainable but I don't see the reason for it without a medical condition.
Thanks for sharing.1 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Depends on preference and macro. Low protein or low fat diets are a bad idea. Low carb can be sustained for a long time without health issues.
Umm..not quite. There are several problems associated with low carb diets:
-Increases insulin resistance.
-Thyroid problems.
-Digestive issues. Lower in fiber. Slowed digestion.
-Low energy, which can impact ability to maintain an active lifestyle.
-Typically high in saturated fat, which raises cholesterol, which can increase risk of cardiovascular disease.
-Eliminates or limits starchy gut healthy foods like potatoes, beans, grains etc which leads to poor colon health.
-Most carby foods like fruits, starchy veg, potatoes, grains, beans etc are nutrient dense. Fats in and of themselves have few to no vitamins and minerals. So a higher fat, lower carb diet is less nutrient dense.
-Typically higher in meat which can contribute to inflammation issues.
-etc.
Some individuals don't do low carb well.
However let's look at your claims. Note - I'm not a general proponent of LC - I consider it's primary failure is that it is too restrictive of food choices.
-Increases insulin resistance - there's some evidence for decreased IR in LC diets (and why some people recommend them for PCOS, etc...)
See improved IR in obese women: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15047685
- Thyroid problems - Have not seen reports of this, please clarify
- Digestive issues - sure, some people see digestive issues in diet change, specific to LC?
- Low energy - apparently people transitioning to low carb do seem to see low energy but this also appears to be something that clear up after a few thats to a week.
- "Saturated fat which raises cholesterol" is now something that is challenged, however some people do show poor cholesterol profiles with LC and others do not.
- any diet that is restrictive may result in nutrient issues and something to consider when going LC but there it doesn't mean one can't have a nutrient rich LC diet. I agree that this might be a concern for some.
Inflammation in diet is a vast subject - claims from meat, wheat, fruit, carbs, certain vegetables, diary, nuts all exist. Articles published showing reduced inflammation and others show increased inflammation with LC or HC.
What I've seen on the IR is that extreme low carb can create IR in the short term -- so that there is a much stronger reaction to carbs when reintroduced. As a result doctors may ask patients to go off low carb before a test to avoid false positives. I had some links about this, but am too lazy to find it now. I don't think this is a negative about low carb -- it's just short term as I understand it -- but it is a reason I'm skeptical when people doing extreme versions of keto say that even after losing weight they can't eat fruit or many veg because of their serious IR. But if they are happier on those diets anyway, fine with me, not my business.
Agree that it seems to have bad effects for cholesterol for some, not for others. Again, my understanding is that some people's cholesterol seems to respond negatively to diet, specifically sat fat, and other's do not, and this is anecdotally confirmed by the experience of various people on MFP, including some who liked the diet but had to go off it. My dad never did low carb, but improved his cholesterol by cutting down on sat fat (not out). On the other hand, so far as I can tell my cholesterol is not negatively affected by diet (and was fine even when I was fat, although it's even better now).
One thing I've heard that concerns me (since I'm also curious and thinking of trying it) is a consistent link with increased cortisol and related issues with recovery when combined with training.0 -
TheDevastator wrote: »LC may be sustainable but I don't see the reason for it without a medical condition.
Some people like it.
I think low fat seems to be sustainable for some too, and that it's not that hard to get adequate fat on a low fat diet if you make an effort to do so. I'm not interested in doing this, but people do.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »What I've seen on the IR is that extreme low carb can create IR in the short term -- so that there is a much stronger reaction to carbs when reintroduced. As a result doctors may ask patients to go off low carb before a test to avoid false positives.
You can get a "physiological" insulin resistance where everything around handling carbs has wound down to the point where it's overwhelmed by a 75 gram glucose test. As you say the suggestion is to ramp up carb intake for a few days ahead of such a test (or just decline it).
I might be like that myself, a typical catered lunch meeting with sandwiches etc will shoot my blood glucose over 8 mmol from a baseline below 5 but I'm not sure how much different that is from a "normal" person on the SAD or equivalent.
0 -
Low carb is horrible the first week in my experience. After that it's not so bad, and you do lose weight. I don't stick to low carb all week. I do very low carb certain days and that helps me lose. When eating at deficit people need to choose carbs carefully I think. Vegetables are carbs, fruits are carbs, whole grains, brown rice etc.0
-
I lasted two weeks. I'm already sick, I can't be doing with that on top of a number of other nasty symptoms. Besides, I love fruit. I'm much happier on then plan I'm on now. Not hungry, sleep well, eat foods I like.3
-
distinctlybeautiful wrote: »When I say diet, I just mean food intake. When I say sustainable, I guess I'm not sure just exactly how long I mean.. let's say years.
Depends on the person. If they are doing it because they want to it can be. If they are doing it because they think they have to, probably not...0 -
My base line is also below 5. Birthday cake, with all that gritty sugary icing will send me to 7. a sandwich, on a normal kaiser roll type thing, sends me up to 11.lemurcat12 wrote: »
I might be like that myself, a typical catered lunch meeting with sandwiches etc will shoot my blood glucose over 8 mmol from a baseline below 5 but I'm not sure how much different that is from a "normal" person on the SAD or equivalent.
Yet my 2 hour BG test came back in the normal range.0 -
Are diets that drastically reduce one of the macros sustainable if there's no medical necessity?distinctlybeautiful wrote: »When I say diet, I just mean food intake. When I say sustainable, I guess I'm not sure just exactly how long I mean.. let's say years.
I think that depends on the individual, their food preferences and if their nutritional needs are still being met.
If you drastically reduce a macro until you no longer meet your body's needs you will develop problems which will make it unsustainable long term. If all the foods you love contain a lot of carbs for example and you drastically reduce carbs then you will probably find that less sustainable than a moderate carb diet.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Depends on preference and macro. Low protein or low fat diets are a bad idea. Low carb can be sustained for a long time without health issues.
Umm..not quite. There are several problems associated with low carb diets:
-Increases insulin resistance.
-Thyroid problems.
-Digestive issues. Lower in fiber. Slowed digestion.
-Low energy, which can impact ability to maintain an active lifestyle.
-Typically high in saturated fat, which raises cholesterol, which can increase risk of cardiovascular disease.
-Eliminates or limits starchy gut healthy foods like potatoes, beans, grains etc which leads to poor colon health.
-Most carby foods like fruits, starchy veg, potatoes, grains, beans etc are nutrient dense. Fats in and of themselves have few to no vitamins and minerals. So a higher fat, lower carb diet is less nutrient dense.
-Typically higher in meat which can contribute to inflammation issues.
-etc.
Some individuals don't do low carb well.
However let's look at your claims. Note - I'm not a general proponent of LC - I consider it's primary failure is that it is too restrictive of food choices.
-Increases insulin resistance - there's some evidence for decreased IR in LC diets (and why some people recommend them for PCOS, etc...)
See improved IR in obese women: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15047685
- Thyroid problems - Have not seen reports of this, please clarify
- Digestive issues - sure, some people see digestive issues in diet change, specific to LC?
- Low energy - apparently people transitioning to low carb do seem to see low energy but this also appears to be something that clear up after a few thats to a week.
- "Saturated fat which raises cholesterol" is now something that is challenged, however some people do show poor cholesterol profiles with LC and others do not.
- any diet that is restrictive may result in nutrient issues and something to consider when going LC but there it doesn't mean one can't have a nutrient rich LC diet. I agree that this might be a concern for some.
Inflammation in diet is a vast subject - claims from meat, wheat, fruit, carbs, certain vegetables, diary, nuts all exist. Articles published showing reduced inflammation and others show increased inflammation with LC or HC.
What I've seen on the IR is that extreme low carb can create IR in the short term -- so that there is a much stronger reaction to carbs when reintroduced. As a result doctors may ask patients to go off low carb before a test to avoid false positives. I had some links about this, but am too lazy to find it now. I don't think this is a negative about low carb -- it's just short term as I understand it -- but it is a reason I'm skeptical when people doing extreme versions of keto say that even after losing weight they can't eat fruit or many veg because of their serious IR. But if they are happier on those diets anyway, fine with me, not my business.
Agree that it seems to have bad effects for cholesterol for some, not for others. Again, my understanding is that some people's cholesterol seems to respond negatively to diet, specifically sat fat, and other's do not, and this is anecdotally confirmed by the experience of various people on MFP, including some who liked the diet but had to go off it. My dad never did low carb, but improved his cholesterol by cutting down on sat fat (not out). On the other hand, so far as I can tell my cholesterol is not negatively affected by diet (and was fine even when I was fat, although it's even better now).
One thing I've heard that concerns me (since I'm also curious and thinking of trying it) is a consistent link with increased cortisol and related issues with recovery when combined with training.
I'm not sure that what these people are experiencing is IR - they might confuse post-prandial response for that. It might actually be increased insulin sensitivity. I'm skeptical of anyone saying "it's my IR" without some valid test there.
I too have the concert with regards to cortisol. Or inflammation in general - I've had gout episodes in the past, and other foot issues - I'm considering changes in diet to see if it helps or not. Who knows.0 -
TheDevastator wrote: »LC may be sustainable but I don't see the reason for it without a medical condition.
Thanks for sharing.
No problem.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TheDevastator wrote: »LC may be sustainable but I don't see the reason for it without a medical condition.
Personal preference is reason enough for choosing a WOE.
Some people see performance improvements in endurance running.
Some people supposedly see performance improvements with 80/10/10 and/or raw food diets too.
0 -
TheDevastator wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TheDevastator wrote: »LC may be sustainable but I don't see the reason for it without a medical condition.
Personal preference is reason enough for choosing a WOE.
Some people see performance improvements in endurance running.
Some people supposedly see performance improvements with 80/10/10 and/or raw food diets too.
Indeed - aside from managing potential issues from minimum protein and fats - personal preference should be sufficient reason to choose a WOE.
0 -
I think once the minimums (of the three) are met to maintain health (note: I said health and not performance), then an imbalance toward any of the macros is sustainable. This is why you see a diverse range of macros between various populations in different geographies. A person can be healthy eating 80% of their diet from carbs just like another person can be healthy eating 80% of their diet from fat (again, assuming minimums of the other macros have been met to ensure health and assuming that weight is within healthy range).1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions