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?

13»

Replies

  • tlflag1620
    tlflag1620 Posts: 1,358 Member
    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.

    Same can be said of cholesterol.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,926 Member
    edited May 2016
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    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.

    Same can be said of cholesterol.

    Correct, the body can make it's own cholesterol too...
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 40,074 Member
    I think sustainability is an individual thing. What is sustainable for one may not be for another and visa versa.

    It personally wouldn't be sustainable for me as I prefer a balanced and varied diet.
  • trollerskates
    trollerskates Posts: 87 Member
    Does one of those macros make you feel really good/really bad.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,020 Member
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    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.

    Same can be said of cholesterol.

    And ketones.
  • tomatosoup3
    tomatosoup3 Posts: 126 Member
    ITS OWN not IT'S OWN
    geez

    ...sorry 'bout that.
  • MakePeasNotWar
    MakePeasNotWar Posts: 1,336 Member
    paulgads82 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

    Can you please post a link or citation for the low fat studies you refer to? I've been trying to find human studies based on diets of actual food (as opposed to synthetic fat free solutions administered by nasogastric tube or IV). I'm coming up empty. Any help would be much appreciated.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,373 Member
    paulgads82 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

    Can you please post a link or citation for the low fat studies you refer to? I've been trying to find human studies based on diets of actual food (as opposed to synthetic fat free solutions administered by nasogastric tube or IV). I'm coming up empty. Any help would be much appreciated.

    Are you looking for the risks related to minimum fats from low fat low cal diets?

    The studies that showed negative impact by going below minimum fat are outlined in the adaptive thermo thread on my profile (I can't access my profile, thanks mfp.)

    Look also at http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/FFA_summary_rec_conclusion.pdf for fat recommendation and the reason behind them.