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?
Replies
-
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 -
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
-
I've been eating low carb for three years. For me, it is quite sustainable (I couldn't imagine ever going back to the lower fat, higher fiber woe I used to suffer through). No adverse health effects. I've never been formally tested for IR, but did have a couple glucose screenings during my last pregnancy (I was eating low carb during the pregnancy, not super low, but still under 120g per day) and passed both, no problem (was tested twice due to age and family history). No thyroid issues. No digestive issues (if anything I'm more "regular" now that I've eliminated most grains and am getting less fiber but more fat). Energy levels have improved; I won't say I have more energy now, but I certainly have steadier energy throughout the day - no more 3 pm slump (stable blood sugar helps stabilize energy levels) and no more reactive hypoglycemia (that *kitten* is scary). Cholesterol profile improved (raised HDL, lowered triglycerides as compared to my low fat, high fiber diet); total cholesterol is a bit higher, but I have been pregnant or nursing (at times both) for the past ten years, so it's hard to say whether my cholesterol is higher because of diet or because of my body working to meet my babies' needs (last cholesterol test I had before starting low carb was also before I had kids). I suppose I might not be aware of any "nutritional deficiencies" but there is nothing in grains, starchy veggies, or high sugar fruit that cannot be obtained (often in greater amounts for fewer calories) from meat, fibrous veggies, or savory/low sugar fruit. Not too worried about some vague "grain deficiency" lol. I would say my inflammation is drastically reduced as evidenced by the complete clearing of my chronic, moderate to severe eczema. I attribute that to all but eliminating wheat and inflammatory seed and vegetable oils as well as getting adequate saturated fat and cholesterol for probably the first time in my adult life.
Is LCHF for everyone? Perhaps not. But I knew six weeks into it that LCHF is simply the way I must eat for the rest of my life, unless I decide I want to go back to being fat, hangry, hypoglycemic, and having my cracked, bleeding hands covered in insanely itchy weeping blisters. Not a hard choice really6 -
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).
This is what I think too.
Of course, what's sustainable in a society where it's the only option vs. one in which we have endless options is going to be different, so for us personal preference and values and beliefs are going to come into play too, but I think all such diets could be sustainable under the right circumstances or for the right person, definitely.0 -
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 it would greatly depend on what you mean by "drastically" and "sustainable".
Humans can exist for quite some time with any macro reduced pretty low. Our bodies are very adaptable.
But whether someone would stick to a diet with a drastically reduced macro is different matter. It's hard to deprive yourself of something that is readily available if you enjoy it.0 -
I have been LCHF for about a year. I did start it due to medical reasons though. I doubt I would have given up candy or soda or potato chips unless I had a reason - sadly.
Now that I am used to LCHF, I can happily eat that way for life. Plus I noticed a few health benefits that I would hate to give up.
Unless there are benefits to a restrictive WoE, such as tasty food, health benefits, moral reasons (like veganism) or athletic performance, I doubt anyone would stick with it. The dieter needs to get something out of a restrictive WoE or why do it?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.
This isn't exactly accurate.
LCHF does not increase IR, it generally lowers it but as others said, physiological IR is a short term issue that disappears after a couple days of normal carb levels.
As far as I know it has no effect on thyroid problems except perhaps to reduce inflammation which could help thyroid function. I have hashimotos and have noticed no difference since changing my diet.
Digestion is not slowed. Food passage occurs at the same rate.
Low energy is a myth. Some experience low energy at first due to an electrolyte imbalance but it isn't due to lack of glucose. Some athletes may notice a short term decrease in athletic performance if they are switching to keto but it doesn't last. If one is worried about short bursts of energy lacking, like power lifting or sprinting, eat a few carbs before the activity - easy.
Sat fats do not raise cholesterol in most people, although excessive carb consumption, especially if paired with high fats, may raise cholesterol.
Does not lead to poor colon health.
I agree that veggies are a nice source of nutrient dense foods, but most protein rich foods and meats are also nutrient dense.
Meat eating, unless highly processed, does not appear to lead to inflammation. Often the opposite.4 -
Turn the food pyramid upside down.
But we are all individuals with no one size fits all meal plan. But a good rule of thumb is that if the government says you do eat a certain way, do the opposite. Such things are driven more by politics than science. The food pyramid came out pushing more carbs/grain consumption after the government started subsidizing grain.
Over time, it has come out that basically everything 'they' told us was wrong.
Butter is good for you. Whole eggs are better for you than fractured eggs (egg white alone).
People that are natural distance runners have a higher ability to utilize carbs without turning it to stored fat. Hence carb loading works for distance runner prior to a big event like a marathon, but may not work so well for recreational or less natural runners.
Some do well following a 4:1 carb to protein for work outs. I don't.
Find what works that one can maintain.
No magic bullet.1 -
-
"There's no such thing as an essential carbohydrate." --Will Brinks2
-
CipherZero wrote: »"There's no such thing as an essential carbohydrate." --Will Brinks
Correct, because your body is so dependent on glucose, it would be foolish to trust you to eat enough to not die consistently in all situations.5 -
CipherZero wrote: »"There's no such thing as an essential carbohydrate." --Will Brinks
Correct. Not essential, meaning the body can makes it's own (glucose) if it has to.2
Categories
- 1.5M All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 386.4K Introduce Yourself
- 42.6K Getting Started
- 258.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 174.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.1K Recipes
- 231.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 305 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.3K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.4K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152K Motivation and Support
- 7.4K Challenges
- 1.2K Debate Club
- 96.1K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 1.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 20 News and Announcements
- 510 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 1.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions