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 low-carb diets unhealthy? - Dr. T. Colin Campbell
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either.
Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
No one suggested that an all carb diet would be a good idea. Aaron was asking whether there'd ever been a time when people were that extreme (as with those claiming that the fewer the carbs, the better the diet). The Okinawan diet wasn't supposed to be all carb -- all carb would be stupid, just as no carb is, or as all fat or all protein would be. (Very few followed anything like the Ornish recommendations in the '80s and '90s. Instead, the US gov't recs were more like "under 30%" for low fat, and we didn't even really do that. Ornish et al. are under 10% and seems to be very healthful for those who follow it, although it's a hard diet for most to follow in the absence of a traditional environment where it's simply the normal diet. Same as keto in that respect, so far as I can tell. Of course there are exceptions who can do keto longer term, but same with the WFPB diets that are low fat.)
The evidence is that the diets that lead to the best results are substantially plant (and therefore carb) based, and of course include all three macros (although some of them are quite low fat and they all tend to be low meat and other animal products compared to the US diet). Therefore, while I think one can do a healthful diet that is low carb (just as one can do a healthful diet that is low fat), the idea that the lower the carbs, the better the diet is silly, and cutting down on vegetables to cut down on carbs (which I agree is not necessary to do low carb) is unhealthful.
Along the lines of Aaron's actual point, that a healthful diet would likely consist of a reasonable amount of all three macros, and that we don't know the effect of ketosis over a long term basis is accurate. I personally do find it at least a consideration that no traditional human diets seem to be ketogenic (to the point that people who live on diets that otherwise would be seem to adapt by not going into ketosis at carb levels others would).3 -
High fat diets used to be a thing except no one called them low carb, high fat they were just normal, perfectly healthy diets. The same with low fat. Someone linked to this book from 1929 by a Harvard doctor in the LC forum - it's absolutely fascinating to me what we once knew.
0 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »All I care to know concerning Carbohydrates, is that it's a macro~nutrient & thus is essential! How's greatly reducing/attempting to eliminate a nutrient, any different than those that attempt to do the same; with a food group (unless for medical reasoning) & this is coming from someone, whom's suppose to consume low Carbohydrate/high Protein because of liver disease? So I consume the minimum of 130 grams daily, no less/no more! I don't support unnecessary extremism, in any facet; of life!
You are low carb. Less than 150g per day is a low carb diet. By what you've said, you are extreme.... Does it really feel that extreme?
There is no minimum carb level for good health. There is no such thing as essential carbohydrates. I know a few people who have eaten under 10g of carbs per day for years and they are quite healthy. Their liver creates the glucose they need through gluconeogenesis. There is no need to worry about not having enough carbs. Technically, there is no nutritional need to eat carbs.
Plus once you are fat adapted, and you rely on ketones more for fuel, your body's glucose needs actually falls. The body does need some glucose, but you don't need to eat carbs to get it.
But that's besides the point. Low carb is exactly that; a lower level of carb consumption than most. It isn't often zero carb. There aren't many actual carnivores out there anymore.
I would question the bold, as I question it for raw diets, considering how often the need for supplementation. A diet that requires supplementation does not address nutritional needs (this is outside of medical conditions that require supplementation).
The "zero carbers" I know (who eat under 5g of carbs most days) don't supplement at all, nor do they appear to need it.
I don't believe that there are any micronutrient deficiencies that occur in a carnivorous diet. Some people worry about the lack of fibre, but fibre appears to mainly be needed when eating carbs.
This doesn't apply to me though. I have found veggies to be something I don't want to give up, although I tend to feel better the fewer I eat.
And i know a ton of lchf and keto'ers who supplement with magnesium and potassium due to commonly know deficiencies. The same can go for raw diets with b12.
Low carbers do often supplement K and Mg, especially early on when they have just started. The electrolytes lost with water weight can be replaced with supplementation. As time goes on, many cut back or stop entirely. K and Mg supplementation is not a requirement when low carbing, although it definitely makes life more pleasant at first.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Which is why vegetarians and vegans are just dropping dead all over the place...substantially plant based diets are generally regarded as some of the healthiest in the world.
It's stuff like this that makes me say things like "gospel of keto" and whatnot...it's just not true...it's some kind of fantasy.
What does vegetarianism have to do with anything here? There are low carb vegetarians. There are keto vegetarians. Vegetarians do not eat just carbs. I don't believe anyone said anything against a plant based diet. I don't see what you are complaining about here...
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder what the anti low carbers, nevermind the anti-keto'ers, are thinking when they complain about that woe.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
The surveys done of the Blue Zone diets would dispute your hypothesis that low grains and sugars (I'm assuming you don't just mean added sugars here since fruits and vegetables contain sugar) are the key here.
I responded to a link that showed Okinawans ate 1% of their diets from sugars and 3% from fruits. Their diet is fairly low in sugar, and definitely low in added sugar and fruit. Their grains are 19%. I wouldn't call either of those high. I would guess that it is lower than what most North Americans eat by quite a bit.
Sure, there are sugars in veggies but not what I would call high. In sweet potatoes, which they seem to eat a LOT of, there is about 4 g of sugar in just over 3 oz. That's higher than I'd want, as someone who has insulin resistance, but it isn't real high. A banana has about 3 times as much sugar.
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
Except low fat never really kicked off, just like low carb is just done by a few people and not the population at large even though it's as much demonized if not more so than fat was.
I don't agree. I thought low fat diets were embraced. Most people did cut back on fats, and the percentage of their diet that was fat did go down. Fat was evil... remember this?
And then came this:
But we're arguing perception here. To me, fat was bad. Saturated fat was worse than just bad. I learned that cutting fat was good. I guess you saw different things.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
No one suggested that an all carb diet would be a good idea. Aaron was asking whether there'd ever been a time when people were that extreme (as with those claiming that the fewer the carbs, the better the diet). The Okinawan diet wasn't supposed to be all carb -- all carb would be stupid, just as no carb is, or as all fat or all protein would be. (Very few followed anything like the Ornish recommendations in the '80s and '90s. Instead, the US gov't recs were more like "under 30%" for low fat, and we didn't even really do that. Ornish et al. are under 10% and seems to be very healthful for those who follow it, although it's a hard diet for most to follow in the absence of a traditional environment where it's simply the normal diet. Same as keto in that respect, so far as I can tell. Of course there are exceptions who can do keto longer term, but same with the WFPB diets that are low fat.)
Right. I know. All Aaron said was:Out of curosity has anyone looked into the history of diet fads to see if there was a time where there was an "all carb" phase where people were trying to avoid all fats or avoid all proteins and focus solely on carbs?
To which I responded:I think the closest we got was the 80s, 90's and to the turn of the century. Low fat foods, because they had fewer calories, was quite the fad. Dean Ornish and all that...
I don't think anyone has ever pushed an all carb phase, besides sailors and explorers a few hundred years ago, since all carbs will kill you eventually.
There was a lot of overreacting. No one ever said go no-carb or no-fat. I just mentioned Ornish as an example of a low fat high carb diet from yester year.The evidence is that the diets that lead to the best results are substantially plant (and therefore carb) based, and of course include all three macros (although some of them are quite low fat and they all tend to be low meat and other animal products compared to the US diet). Therefore, while I think one can do a healthful diet that is low carb (just as one can do a healthful diet that is low fat), the idea that the lower the carbs, the better the diet is silly, and cutting down on vegetables to cut down on carbs (which I agree is not necessary to do low carb) is unhealthful.
Often, yes, healthful diets are plant based. Not always. Your opinion that cutting back on vegetables to cut back on carbs is unhealthy is just that - an opinion.Along the lines of Aaron's actual point, that a healthful diet would likely consist of a reasonable amount of all three macros, and that we don't know the effect of ketosis over a long term basis is accurate. I personally do find it at least a consideration that no traditional human diets seem to be ketogenic (to the point that people who live on diets that otherwise would be seem to adapt by not going into ketosis at carb levels others would).
I don't completely agree. Yes there are not many long term studies on ketosis, but the ones we do have prove it's safety. I do doubt that traditional people were/are out of ketosis most of the time if they are active and eating 50g of carbs per day, or even 100g.... I doubt the masai or inuit exceeded 50g-100g of carbs per day that often. I could be wrong.0 -
That is an interesting book. I just started looking at it.AlabasterVerve wrote: »High fat diets used to be a thing except no one called them low carb, high fat they were just normal, perfectly healthy diets. The same with low fat. Someone linked to this book from 1929 by a Harvard doctor in the LC forum - it's absolutely fascinating to me what we once knew.
390g of fat per day was pretty impressive. I wonder what he was eating?0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Which is why vegetarians and vegans are just dropping dead all over the place...substantially plant based diets are generally regarded as some of the healthiest in the world.
It's stuff like this that makes me say things like "gospel of keto" and whatnot...it's just not true...it's some kind of fantasy.
What does vegetarianism have to do with anything here? There are low carb vegetarians. There are keto vegetarians. Vegetarians do not eat just carbs. I don't believe anyone said anything against a plant based diet. I don't see what you are complaining about here...
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder what the anti low carbers, nevermind the anti-keto'ers, are thinking when they complain about that woe.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
The surveys done of the Blue Zone diets would dispute your hypothesis that low grains and sugars (I'm assuming you don't just mean added sugars here since fruits and vegetables contain sugar) are the key here.
I responded to a link that showed Okinawans ate 1% of their diets from sugars and 3% from fruits. Their diet is fairly low in sugar, and definitely low in added sugar and fruit. Their grains are 19%. I wouldn't call either of those high. I would guess that it is lower than what most North Americans eat by quite a bit.
Sure, there are sugars in veggies but not what I would call high. In sweet potatoes, which they seem to eat a LOT of, there is about 4 g of sugar in just over 3 oz. That's higher than I'd want, as someone who has insulin resistance, but it isn't real high. A banana has about 3 times as much sugar.
Your response doesn't address the fact that the Blue Zone people eat grains, which is something you seem to think people shouldn't eat. Additionally, the Blue Zoners average carb intake is 65%. All carbohydrates turn to sugar in the body.
Where does that leave your hypothesis?1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
No one suggested that an all carb diet would be a good idea. Aaron was asking whether there'd ever been a time when people were that extreme (as with those claiming that the fewer the carbs, the better the diet). The Okinawan diet wasn't supposed to be all carb -- all carb would be stupid, just as no carb is, or as all fat or all protein would be. (Very few followed anything like the Ornish recommendations in the '80s and '90s. Instead, the US gov't recs were more like "under 30%" for low fat, and we didn't even really do that. Ornish et al. are under 10% and seems to be very healthful for those who follow it, although it's a hard diet for most to follow in the absence of a traditional environment where it's simply the normal diet. Same as keto in that respect, so far as I can tell. Of course there are exceptions who can do keto longer term, but same with the WFPB diets that are low fat.)
Right. I know. All Aaron said was:Out of curosity has anyone looked into the history of diet fads to see if there was a time where there was an "all carb" phase where people were trying to avoid all fats or avoid all proteins and focus solely on carbs?
To which I responded:I think the closest we got was the 80s, 90's and to the turn of the century. Low fat foods, because they had fewer calories, was quite the fad. Dean Ornish and all that...
I don't think anyone has ever pushed an all carb phase, besides sailors and explorers a few hundred years ago, since all carbs will kill you eventually.
There was a lot of overreacting. No one ever said go no-carb or no-fat. I just mentioned Ornish as an example of a low fat high carb diet from yester year.
Ornish wasn't the diet that was popular, and isn't from yesteryear. It's a very low fat diet whole foods aimed at those with heart issues, similar to several others. Contrary to what you are suggesting, low fat was never that popular, did not actually happen (total fat did not decrease at all, and fat percentage increased only a little and all due to making total calories higher, not decreasing fat). Yes, advice was to reduce total fat (generally, below 30%), to cut back on sat fat (still what most nutrition experts advise -- see the Harvard Nutrition site for good discussion about this), AND to reduce refined carbs (switch to whole grains and vegetables) and also to INCREASE vegetables, fruits, non animal sources of protein, fish. This advice was ignored, which is why the claim that the SAD got bad due to following the advice of experts is so ludicrous. What happened was that people kept eating just as much fat as before, but justified (maybe) eating some things as low fat, increased total calories, possibly switched up some sat fat for refined carbs (never recommended), and unrelated to the advice of experts, the US diet continued transitioning from a regular meal-based one to a snack and fast food based one (with many or most snacks and fast foods being high fat and high refined carbs). Oh, and some segments of the popular did greatly increase sugary drinks, which perhaps on its own explain a huge part of the increase in carbs/calories, but is hardly something ANYONE thought was recommended and has exactly ZERO to do with Ornish (whose diet has very positive health effects) or an all carb diet. (The answer to Aaron's question was no, nothing even close has been recommended in the mainstream, the closest is probably the raw 80-10-10 thing that some YouTubers push now).The evidence is that the diets that lead to the best results are substantially plant (and therefore carb) based, and of course include all three macros (although some of them are quite low fat and they all tend to be low meat and other animal products compared to the US diet). Therefore, while I think one can do a healthful diet that is low carb (just as one can do a healthful diet that is low fat), the idea that the lower the carbs, the better the diet is silly, and cutting down on vegetables to cut down on carbs (which I agree is not necessary to do low carb) is unhealthful.
Often, yes, healthful diets are plant based. Not always. Your opinion that cutting back on vegetables to cut back on carbs is unhealthy is just that - an opinion. [/quote]
A much better founded one, supported by virtually all the credible nutrition experts, vs. your claim that getting as low in carbs as possible is somehow the best diet for us (contrary to the research re traditional diets).Along the lines of Aaron's actual point, that a healthful diet would likely consist of a reasonable amount of all three macros, and that we don't know the effect of ketosis over a long term basis is accurate. I personally do find it at least a consideration that no traditional human diets seem to be ketogenic (to the point that people who live on diets that otherwise would be seem to adapt by not going into ketosis at carb levels others would).
I don't completely agree. Yes there are not many long term studies on ketosis, but the ones we do have prove it's safety. I do doubt that traditional people were/are out of ketosis most of the time if they are active and eating 50g of carbs per day, or even 100g.... I doubt the masai or inuit exceeded 50g-100g of carbs per day that often. I could be wrong. [/quote]
The evidence is that they were not in ketosis--they adapted so as to not go into ketosis as easily as we do, or else there was some kind of natural selection so that as a population they had that occur (I don't know the right words here for the time frame involved). Point is, that suggests that it may be better long term for use not to be in ketosis (barring some problem that makes it necessary to protect against worse evils, like epilepsy -- I note that T2D is not one of those, since it's virtually unheard of in blue zones).
Anyway, I will agree that this is just a theory and not a reason to claim that ketosis longterm IS bad for us. It's one reason I'm skeptical of it (I do have a tendency to the natural fallacy, granted). I don't argue it as evidence, but it's something that makes me wonder. What I do say and think is grounded in the best current evidence, is that we know that eating lots of whole plant foods is good for us and that a low carb diet is probably healthful (like other diets with varying carb levels) if they include this as one of the elements, which is possible. Carb % and fat % on their own probably don't matter a bit, how healthful the overall choices are does.
I'm willing to have you and I agree to disagree about what choices are healthful, of course, but if you make claims that aren't founded (like that we ever really tried low fat) then I have to respond.
(I don't think low fat is a good idea on a population basis since I don't think it's easy to adhere to when lots of foods are available and you have no strict health reasons for it. I do think the evidence for WFPB (which tends to be low fat) being extremely healthful is far better than that for keto being healthful, and that keto seems to be like any other diet -- possible to do healthfully and possible to do extremely unhealthfully. Of course, if someone is really fat just losing is good for the health, so if even a non healthy version of keto or any other diet helps one do that, it's probably good for that person, at least in the shorter term. I'd hope that over time even those people would transition to a healthier version of their preferred way of eating, whatever it is.)2 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
Except low fat never really kicked off, just like low carb is just done by a few people and not the population at large even though it's as much demonized if not more so than fat was.
I don't agree. I thought low fat diets were embraced. Most people did cut back on fats, and the percentage of their diet that was fat did go down. Fat was evil... remember this?
And then came this:
But we're arguing perception here. To me, fat was bad. Saturated fat was worse than just bad. I learned that cutting fat was good. I guess you saw different things.
There's no need to argue perception.
We have cold hard numbers after all.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
Average fat intake went down from 36 to 33% of total calories over a period of 30 years. If you call that embracing low fat then going from 50% carbs to 45% is "embracing low carb".
Edit: Ah yes, thanks Lemurcat, I totally forgot that total calorie intake of course increased over that period, meaning that total fat intake pretty much stayed the same or even increased in that time.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Which is why vegetarians and vegans are just dropping dead all over the place...substantially plant based diets are generally regarded as some of the healthiest in the world.
It's stuff like this that makes me say things like "gospel of keto" and whatnot...it's just not true...it's some kind of fantasy.
What does vegetarianism have to do with anything here? There are low carb vegetarians. There are keto vegetarians. Vegetarians do not eat just carbs. I don't believe anyone said anything against a plant based diet. I don't see what you are complaining about here...
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder what the anti low carbers, nevermind the anti-keto'ers, are thinking when they complain about that woe.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
The surveys done of the Blue Zone diets would dispute your hypothesis that low grains and sugars (I'm assuming you don't just mean added sugars here since fruits and vegetables contain sugar) are the key here.
I responded to a link that showed Okinawans ate 1% of their diets from sugars and 3% from fruits. Their diet is fairly low in sugar, and definitely low in added sugar and fruit. Their grains are 19%. I wouldn't call either of those high. I would guess that it is lower than what most North Americans eat by quite a bit.
Sure, there are sugars in veggies but not what I would call high. In sweet potatoes, which they seem to eat a LOT of, there is about 4 g of sugar in just over 3 oz. That's higher than I'd want, as someone who has insulin resistance, but it isn't real high. A banana has about 3 times as much sugar.
Your response doesn't address the fact that the Blue Zone people eat grains, which is something you seem to think people shouldn't eat. Additionally, the Blue Zoners average carb intake is 65%. All carbohydrates turn to sugar in the body.
Where does that leave your hypothesis?
Goal posts moved.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Which is why vegetarians and vegans are just dropping dead all over the place...substantially plant based diets are generally regarded as some of the healthiest in the world.
It's stuff like this that makes me say things like "gospel of keto" and whatnot...it's just not true...it's some kind of fantasy.
What does vegetarianism have to do with anything here? There are low carb vegetarians. There are keto vegetarians. Vegetarians do not eat just carbs. I don't believe anyone said anything against a plant based diet. I don't see what you are complaining about here...
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder what the anti low carbers, nevermind the anti-keto'ers, are thinking when they complain about that woe.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
The surveys done of the Blue Zone diets would dispute your hypothesis that low grains and sugars (I'm assuming you don't just mean added sugars here since fruits and vegetables contain sugar) are the key here.
I responded to a link that showed Okinawans ate 1% of their diets from sugars and 3% from fruits. Their diet is fairly low in sugar, and definitely low in added sugar and fruit. Their grains are 19%. I wouldn't call either of those high. I would guess that it is lower than what most North Americans eat by quite a bit.
Sure, there are sugars in veggies but not what I would call high. In sweet potatoes, which they seem to eat a LOT of, there is about 4 g of sugar in just over 3 oz. That's higher than I'd want, as someone who has insulin resistance, but it isn't real high. A banana has about 3 times as much sugar.
Your response doesn't address the fact that the Blue Zone people eat grains, which is something you seem to think people shouldn't eat. Additionally, the Blue Zoners average carb intake is 65%. All carbohydrates turn to sugar in the body.
Where does that leave your hypothesis?
Goal posts moved.
No, you moved them. I've been addressing your comment about no grains from the beginning. You keep dodging it.4 -
I tried every fad diet there was until I just got tired of yo-yo dieting so I became a lacto-ovo vegetarian for 3 yrs. I just got tired of chewing meat so i got rid of it lol. Anyhoo, while eating this way, incorporating wheat, rice, potatoes, pasta, butter & eggs in this lifestyle, I've noticed IN ME certain physical changes. 1. The weight wasn't just falling, dropping off. 2. When I ate the heavy carbs (breads, rice, potatoes, pasta) & fruit I immediately became lethargic & was off to sleep in a heartbeat. It was the gluten, starch & sugars. 3. My hair, skin & nails wasn't as vibrant. 4. I sometimes experienced brainfog.
Now that I've quit that lifestyle & now eating LCHF (Low Carb High Fat) everything I've mentioned above I'm no longer experiencing & the weight is coming off & I'm full of energy. I get most of my carbs from eating vegetables and I eat a variety & every color. I only eat berries on occassion for my fruit fix & antioxidants. My high fats consist of coconut, olive, avacado oils, butter & fatty fish & meats. Protein, check! I'm not drinking or drenching my foods in fats. I'm satiated & can go longer without eating & don't think about my next meal. This way of eating works for ME & I'm never going back to being vegetarian or eating the SAD (Standard American Diet) EVER again.
Bottom line, find out what works for you & stick with it. Good luck all!5 -
LipSmackingFun wrote: »Bottom line, find out what works for you & stick with it. Good luck all!
This. After all this time ... this. Nobody needs to be an evangelist about how they eat. Find what works for you. As far as debating studies, etc. Everyone has an opinion on what's put on the table. However, FOR ME, I don't follow anything the government says. Far as studies go if I'm interested in one for myself I try and follow the money. My very first basic rule. Who's paying for it OR who will reap the benefits of it. After all, wasn't it Harvard that helped back the sugar industry and the demonizing of fats? Probably some what blown out of proportion and I haven't dug into it that deeply so there is that.
The end result is people have to do what's right for them and their body. We all do the best we can but there is always room for improvement.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
No one suggested that an all carb diet would be a good idea. Aaron was asking whether there'd ever been a time when people were that extreme (as with those claiming that the fewer the carbs, the better the diet). The Okinawan diet wasn't supposed to be all carb -- all carb would be stupid, just as no carb is, or as all fat or all protein would be. (Very few followed anything like the Ornish recommendations in the '80s and '90s. Instead, the US gov't recs were more like "under 30%" for low fat, and we didn't even really do that. Ornish et al. are under 10% and seems to be very healthful for those who follow it, although it's a hard diet for most to follow in the absence of a traditional environment where it's simply the normal diet. Same as keto in that respect, so far as I can tell. Of course there are exceptions who can do keto longer term, but same with the WFPB diets that are low fat.)
Right. I know. All Aaron said was:Out of curosity has anyone looked into the history of diet fads to see if there was a time where there was an "all carb" phase where people were trying to avoid all fats or avoid all proteins and focus solely on carbs?
To which I responded:I think the closest we got was the 80s, 90's and to the turn of the century. Low fat foods, because they had fewer calories, was quite the fad. Dean Ornish and all that...
I don't think anyone has ever pushed an all carb phase, besides sailors and explorers a few hundred years ago, since all carbs will kill you eventually.
There was a lot of overreacting. No one ever said go no-carb or no-fat. I just mentioned Ornish as an example of a low fat high carb diet from yester year.
Ornish wasn't the diet that was popular, and isn't from yesteryear. It's a very low fat diet whole foods aimed at those with heart issues, similar to several others. Contrary to what you are suggesting, low fat was never that popular, did not actually happen (total fat did not decrease at all, and fat percentage increased only a little and all due to making total calories higher, not decreasing fat). Yes, advice was to reduce total fat (generally, below 30%), to cut back on sat fat (still what most nutrition experts advise -- see the Harvard Nutrition site for good discussion about this), AND to reduce refined carbs (switch to whole grains and vegetables) and also to INCREASE vegetables, fruits, non animal sources of protein, fish. This advice was ignored, which is why the claim that the SAD got bad due to following the advice of experts is so ludicrous. What happened was that people kept eating just as much fat as before, but justified (maybe) eating some things as low fat, increased total calories, possibly switched up some sat fat for refined carbs (never recommended), and unrelated to the advice of experts, the US diet continued transitioning from a regular meal-based one to a snack and fast food based one (with many or most snacks and fast foods being high fat and high refined carbs). Oh, and some segments of the popular did greatly increase sugary drinks, which perhaps on its own explain a huge part of the increase in carbs/calories, but is hardly something ANYONE thought was recommended and has exactly ZERO to do with Ornish (whose diet has very positive health effects) or an all carb diet. (The answer to Aaron's question was no, nothing even close has been recommended in the mainstream, the closest is probably the raw 80-10-10 thing that some YouTubers push now).The evidence is that the diets that lead to the best results are substantially plant (and therefore carb) based, and of course include all three macros (although some of them are quite low fat and they all tend to be low meat and other animal products compared to the US diet). Therefore, while I think one can do a healthful diet that is low carb (just as one can do a healthful diet that is low fat), the idea that the lower the carbs, the better the diet is silly, and cutting down on vegetables to cut down on carbs (which I agree is not necessary to do low carb) is unhealthful.
Often, yes, healthful diets are plant based. Not always. Your opinion that cutting back on vegetables to cut back on carbs is unhealthy is just that - an opinion.
A much better founded one, supported by virtually all the credible nutrition experts, vs. your claim that getting as low in carbs as possible is somehow the best diet for us (contrary to the research re traditional diets).Along the lines of Aaron's actual point, that a healthful diet would likely consist of a reasonable amount of all three macros, and that we don't know the effect of ketosis over a long term basis is accurate. I personally do find it at least a consideration that no traditional human diets seem to be ketogenic (to the point that people who live on diets that otherwise would be seem to adapt by not going into ketosis at carb levels others would).
I don't completely agree. Yes there are not many long term studies on ketosis, but the ones we do have prove it's safety. I do doubt that traditional people were/are out of ketosis most of the time if they are active and eating 50g of carbs per day, or even 100g.... I doubt the masai or inuit exceeded 50g-100g of carbs per day that often. I could be wrong. [/quote]
The evidence is that they were not in ketosis--they adapted so as to not go into ketosis as easily as we do, or else there was some kind of natural selection so that as a population they had that occur (I don't know the right words here for the time frame involved). Point is, that suggests that it may be better long term for use not to be in ketosis (barring some problem that makes it necessary to protect against worse evils, like epilepsy -- I note that T2D is not one of those, since it's virtually unheard of in blue zones).
Anyway, I will agree that this is just a theory and not a reason to claim that ketosis longterm IS bad for us. It's one reason I'm skeptical of it (I do have a tendency to the natural fallacy, granted). I don't argue it as evidence, but it's something that makes me wonder. What I do say and think is grounded in the best current evidence, is that we know that eating lots of whole plant foods is good for us and that a low carb diet is probably healthful (like other diets with varying carb levels) if they include this as one of the elements, which is possible. Carb % and fat % on their own probably don't matter a bit, how healthful the overall choices are does.
I'm willing to have you and I agree to disagree about what choices are healthful, of course, but if you make claims that aren't founded (like that we ever really tried low fat) then I have to respond.
(I don't think low fat is a good idea on a population basis since I don't think it's easy to adhere to when lots of foods are available and you have no strict health reasons for it. I do think the evidence for WFPB (which tends to be low fat) being extremely healthful is far better than that for keto being healthful, and that keto seems to be like any other diet -- possible to do healthfully and possible to do extremely unhealthfully. Of course, if someone is really fat just losing is good for the health, so if even a non healthy version of keto or any other diet helps one do that, it's probably good for that person, at least in the shorter term. I'd hope that over time even those people would transition to a healthier version of their preferred way of eating, whatever it is.)[/quote]
Okay. Maybe I should not have said yester year for Ornish. His ideas and first books are almost 30 years old. But that was during the lower fat push of the 90's for sure. I am not sure if he was into selling his ideas to the public yet in the 80s.
I disagree that low fat was never popular/ People call gluten free a fad? (I agree it is.) Just look at the shelves in the stores. I am positive that the "low-fat" or "zero fat" greatly out number the GF labels. Some call LCHF a fad. Again, the low carb labels are much less than low fat labels.
I do think that people accepted (embraced) the idea that fat was to be lowered. People tried. They were not entirely successful, but fat intake did come down.
From https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
The fat intake of Americans continued to drop, even as caloric intake increased, until the late 90s when the low fat diet popualrity began to wane. Taken from http://chartsbin.com/view/1156 American's daily intake of fat was:
1990-1992 140g
1995-1997 138g
2000-2002 155g
2005-2007 161g
I must admit that I'm not sure where those numbers came from and how accurate they are. I posted them to show the trend - a fat intake increase of about 9% once low fat diet popularity fell. The numbers seem high to me. That's more than I, a ketogenic dieter, eats but it could just be looking at the average person who is eating much more than me.... As we know excess calories = weight gain, right?
According to the same group, Americans caloric intake went from just over 3500 to almost 3800 from 1990 to 2007. http://chartsbin.com/view/1150
And below is the CDC's take on percentage of calories from fat. It fell. Not by a huge amount. It's sort of like when someone declares they are going low carb but only stop adding sugar to food. Their misguided efforts weren't actually enough to get them low. But they tried.
I do agree that a plant based diet can be very healthy. I have never said it wasn't. And I have said that low carb diets are best for ME and may be best for others with insulin resistance. I never said "us" as you implied here:A much better founded one, supported by virtually all the credible nutrition experts, vs. your claim that getting as low in carbs as possible is somehow the best diet for us (contrary to the research re traditional diets).
Do you know how those traditional cultures were tested for ketosis? An honest question because I don't know. I suppose it is possible that those peoples are adapted to not be in ketosis for some reason, but another possibility might be faulty testing due to inaccurate methods like ketostix or even the breath test. I've been eating well below 50g of carbs for a fair time now and I rarely test positive for ketosis anymore. I don't spill excess ketones now. Unless someone did a blood test on me, they would have no idea that I am in ketosis. I would have normal ketostix and normal blood glucose... I guess they would have no idea that I am insulin resistant either with normal BG and lower insulin levels.
The rest we'll just have to disagree on. Again. 0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
Except low fat never really kicked off, just like low carb is just done by a few people and not the population at large even though it's as much demonized if not more so than fat was.
I don't agree. I thought low fat diets were embraced. Most people did cut back on fats, and the percentage of their diet that was fat did go down. Fat was evil... remember this?
And then came this:
But we're arguing perception here. To me, fat was bad. Saturated fat was worse than just bad. I learned that cutting fat was good. I guess you saw different things.
There's no need to argue perception.
We have cold hard numbers after all.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
Average fat intake went down from 36 to 33% of total calories over a period of 30 years. If you call that embracing low fat then going from 50% carbs to 45% is "embracing low carb".
Edit: Ah yes, thanks Lemurcat, I totally forgot that total calorie intake of course increased over that period, meaning that total fat intake pretty much stayed the same or even increased in that time.
I guess I should have read all the replies before responding. You quoted the same information as me. Interesting how you interpret a drop in dietary intake as people not trying to lower their dietary intake. I see that differently. They tried, but did not succeed well. Ornish may have told them to try harder.
And yes, I have seen trials where they call a 10% drop in carbohydrates a low carb diet. Another failed attempt. Atkins may have told them to try harder. LOL0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Which is why vegetarians and vegans are just dropping dead all over the place...substantially plant based diets are generally regarded as some of the healthiest in the world.
It's stuff like this that makes me say things like "gospel of keto" and whatnot...it's just not true...it's some kind of fantasy.
What does vegetarianism have to do with anything here? There are low carb vegetarians. There are keto vegetarians. Vegetarians do not eat just carbs. I don't believe anyone said anything against a plant based diet. I don't see what you are complaining about here...
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder what the anti low carbers, nevermind the anti-keto'ers, are thinking when they complain about that woe.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
The surveys done of the Blue Zone diets would dispute your hypothesis that low grains and sugars (I'm assuming you don't just mean added sugars here since fruits and vegetables contain sugar) are the key here.
I responded to a link that showed Okinawans ate 1% of their diets from sugars and 3% from fruits. Their diet is fairly low in sugar, and definitely low in added sugar and fruit. Their grains are 19%. I wouldn't call either of those high. I would guess that it is lower than what most North Americans eat by quite a bit.
Sure, there are sugars in veggies but not what I would call high. In sweet potatoes, which they seem to eat a LOT of, there is about 4 g of sugar in just over 3 oz. That's higher than I'd want, as someone who has insulin resistance, but it isn't real high. A banana has about 3 times as much sugar.
Your response doesn't address the fact that the Blue Zone people eat grains, which is something you seem to think people shouldn't eat. Additionally, the Blue Zoners average carb intake is 65%. All carbohydrates turn to sugar in the body.
Where does that leave your hypothesis?
Goal posts moved.
No, you moved them. I've been addressing your comment about no grains from the beginning. You keep dodging it.
I moved them? I don't think so. But fine. We'll go down the path of your argument for a bit...Bit off topic though.
So what blue zone eat a high leve of highly refined grains? I think refined, ultraprocessed grains tend to be the problem. I doubt that a bowl of rice or corn on the cob is a health problem for people who are still metabolically healthy. I doubt people develop insulin resistance by eating too may ears of corn or steel cut oats every morning. Refine those grains, add sugars and fats and I think you may have problem causing foods. HFCS? Instant oatmeal with a spoonful of sugar on top? Not as healthy IMO.
So. What blue zone groups eat a lot of refrined grains? And / or sugars?
ETA Which comment about no grains were you refering to? I went back to look and can't see anything where I commented about no grains.0 -
LipSmackingFun wrote: »I tried every fad diet there was until I just got tired of yo-yo dieting so I became a lacto-ovo vegetarian for 3 yrs. I just got tired of chewing meat so i got rid of it lol. Anyhoo, while eating this way, incorporating wheat, rice, potatoes, pasta, butter & eggs in this lifestyle, I've noticed IN ME certain physical changes. 1. The weight wasn't just falling, dropping off. 2. When I ate the heavy carbs (breads, rice, potatoes, pasta) & fruit I immediately became lethargic & was off to sleep in a heartbeat. It was the gluten, starch & sugars. 3. My hair, skin & nails wasn't as vibrant. 4. I sometimes experienced brainfog.
Now that I've quit that lifestyle & now eating LCHF (Low Carb High Fat) everything I've mentioned above I'm no longer experiencing & the weight is coming off & I'm full of energy. I get most of my carbs from eating vegetables and I eat a variety & every color. I only eat berries on occassion for my fruit fix & antioxidants. My high fats consist of coconut, olive, avacado oils, butter & fatty fish & meats. Protein, check! I'm not drinking or drenching my foods in fats. I'm satiated & can go longer without eating & don't think about my next meal. This way of eating works for ME & I'm never going back to being vegetarian or eating the SAD (Standard American Diet) EVER again.
Bottom line, find out what works for you & stick with it. Good luck all!
Congrats!
I think you hit the nail on the head. Find what works for you. LCHF or higher carb. Vegetarian or carnivore or omnivore. Whatever provides good health.
1 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »It seems everything can lead to heart disease and cancer. What else is new?
Totally agree. Any named way of eating can be botched.
While eating carbs is optional eating fats and protein are NOT optional. So a Low Carb Low Fat diet could lead to a health train wreck for example.2 -
Catawampous wrote: »LipSmackingFun wrote: »Bottom line, find out what works for you & stick with it. Good luck all!
This. After all this time ... this. Nobody needs to be an evangelist about how they eat.
That's what I keep saying. Sadly, there seem to be some keto boosters on this forum who don't agree.FOR ME, I don't follow anything the government says. Far as studies go if I'm interested in one for myself I try and follow the money. My very first basic rule. Who's paying for it OR who will reap the benefits of it. After all, wasn't it Harvard that helped back the sugar industry and the demonizing of fats? Probably some what blown out of proportion and I haven't dug into it that deeply so there is that.
Harvard and "the government" are not the same thing. The Harvard nutrition folks take issue with the gov't recommendations in some ways (they think they aren't strong enough). The government recommendations are pretty good, though -- if people actually followed them (most, like you say, don't), they'd have a much better diet than the SAD. Or don't, I don't care, but don't pretend like the SAD has a thing to do with what the gov't recommendations are, that's all I ask.The end result is people have to do what's right for them and their body. We all do the best we can but there is always room for improvement.
Just don't preach to others about how they'd be healthier if they ate the carb and fat percentages you happen to prefer, or tell them they'd better cut out fruit or whole grains, because those are poison, and I'll be happy. That's the kind of thing that provokes me to post in these discussions.
I think the WFPB diet is a really healthy one (contrary to what some keto fans claim), but I don't do it myself, because I haven't been convinced it's healthier than one that allows animal products (especially eggs and fish), and I happen to like (and think I feel better when consuming, although that could be a misperception) animal products.3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »It seems everything can lead to heart disease and cancer. What else is new?
Totally agree. Any named way of eating can be botched.
While eating carbs is optional eating fats and protein are NOT optional. So a Low Carb Low Fat diet could lead to a health train wreck for example.
Yeah, a low carb, low fat diet is generally a bad idea (assuming you mean very low on both, not just lower than average, which is a 40-30-30, probably), but that has nothing to do with fat being not optional and carbs being optional. It has to do with their being no purpose to high protein beyond a certain point, and carbs/fat being better sources of energy.
Carbs are "optional" since your body makes them whether you eat them or not, because they are so important.
The amount of fat and protein that are needed are far less than what people eat in a normal calorie diet with available food, as in the US. And only certain fats are needed. Therefore, that claim has zero to do with whether one should be high carb, high fat, high protein, whatever.
Again, my personal view is that beyond a few basic things (getting enough protein, which is pretty easy), and eating a varied diet, macros don't matter a whit. Food choice within the macros matters more. Therefore, if you enjoy high fat, eat it, eat an otherwise healthful diet, great. If you like high carb, same thing. If you (like me) like a more moderate across the board diet (40-30-30 or 50-25-25 or 50-30-20 or various similar things), great. I don't normally track macros, but I watch protein a bit (and watch it more closely when doing plant based, when I find it more challenging to get what I think is ideal).0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
Except low fat never really kicked off, just like low carb is just done by a few people and not the population at large even though it's as much demonized if not more so than fat was.
I don't agree. I thought low fat diets were embraced. Most people did cut back on fats, and the percentage of their diet that was fat did go down. Fat was evil... remember this?
And then came this:
But we're arguing perception here. To me, fat was bad. Saturated fat was worse than just bad. I learned that cutting fat was good. I guess you saw different things.
There's no need to argue perception.
We have cold hard numbers after all.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
Average fat intake went down from 36 to 33% of total calories over a period of 30 years. If you call that embracing low fat then going from 50% carbs to 45% is "embracing low carb".
Edit: Ah yes, thanks Lemurcat, I totally forgot that total calorie intake of course increased over that period, meaning that total fat intake pretty much stayed the same or even increased in that time.
I guess I should have read all the replies before responding. You quoted the same information as me. Interesting how you interpret a drop in dietary intake as people not trying to lower their dietary intake. I see that differently. They tried, but did not succeed well. Ornish may have told them to try harder.
Ornish, who most Americans have probably not heard of, said go below 10%. The gov't, for a while, said go below 30% and switch out fat for whole grains and vegetables/fruits. Few did that either (and I don't think because it's hard). I discussed in my post why I think the percentage of fat dropped a bit while total consumption of fat did not (the move to a more snack-based less meal-based diet plus sugary drinks).
I think it's absurd to call 40% or 45% carbs (or 50% on a deficit) a low carb diet, and I see no reason to think someone doing those (or a higher carb diet that happens to be nutrient dense) should "try harder." Again, the problem with the SAD is food choice, not macros. And, especially, calories.
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
Except low fat never really kicked off, just like low carb is just done by a few people and not the population at large even though it's as much demonized if not more so than fat was.
I don't agree. I thought low fat diets were embraced. Most people did cut back on fats, and the percentage of their diet that was fat did go down. Fat was evil... remember this?
And then came this:
But we're arguing perception here. To me, fat was bad. Saturated fat was worse than just bad. I learned that cutting fat was good. I guess you saw different things.
There's no need to argue perception.
We have cold hard numbers after all.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
Average fat intake went down from 36 to 33% of total calories over a period of 30 years. If you call that embracing low fat then going from 50% carbs to 45% is "embracing low carb".
Edit: Ah yes, thanks Lemurcat, I totally forgot that total calorie intake of course increased over that period, meaning that total fat intake pretty much stayed the same or even increased in that time.
I guess I should have read all the replies before responding. You quoted the same information as me. Interesting how you interpret a drop in dietary intake as people not trying to lower their dietary intake. I see that differently. They tried, but did not succeed well. Ornish may have told them to try harder.
And yes, I have seen trials where they call a 10% drop in carbohydrates a low carb diet. Another failed attempt. Atkins may have told them to try harder. LOL
Energy intake went up. Meaning they didn't eat less fat.
At all.
Ever.
They instead started eating more carbs and protein (which caused the increase in calories), keeping fat about the same.
They started eating more.
If you don't understand here's the math
Men in 1971 ate an average of 2450 calories.
Out of that 42.4% were carbs, that's 1039 calories.
With 36.9% of that being fat, that's 904 calories.
And 16.5% protein, that's 404 calories.
4% are missing from that, so that's probably alcohol.
In 2000 they were eating 2618 calories.
1283 carbs,
859 fat,
406 protein
So, over 30 years, men "reduced" their fat intake by 5 grams.
Are you seriously calling that embracing low fat, seriously?4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Which is why vegetarians and vegans are just dropping dead all over the place...substantially plant based diets are generally regarded as some of the healthiest in the world.
It's stuff like this that makes me say things like "gospel of keto" and whatnot...it's just not true...it's some kind of fantasy.
What does vegetarianism have to do with anything here? There are low carb vegetarians. There are keto vegetarians. Vegetarians do not eat just carbs. I don't believe anyone said anything against a plant based diet. I don't see what you are complaining about here...
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder what the anti low carbers, nevermind the anti-keto'ers, are thinking when they complain about that woe.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
The surveys done of the Blue Zone diets would dispute your hypothesis that low grains and sugars (I'm assuming you don't just mean added sugars here since fruits and vegetables contain sugar) are the key here.
I responded to a link that showed Okinawans ate 1% of their diets from sugars and 3% from fruits. Their diet is fairly low in sugar, and definitely low in added sugar and fruit. Their grains are 19%. I wouldn't call either of those high. I would guess that it is lower than what most North Americans eat by quite a bit.
Sure, there are sugars in veggies but not what I would call high. In sweet potatoes, which they seem to eat a LOT of, there is about 4 g of sugar in just over 3 oz. That's higher than I'd want, as someone who has insulin resistance, but it isn't real high. A banana has about 3 times as much sugar.
Your response doesn't address the fact that the Blue Zone people eat grains, which is something you seem to think people shouldn't eat. Additionally, the Blue Zoners average carb intake is 65%. All carbohydrates turn to sugar in the body.
Where does that leave your hypothesis?
Goal posts moved.
No, you moved them. I've been addressing your comment about no grains from the beginning. You keep dodging it.
I moved them? I don't think so. But fine. We'll go down the path of your argument for a bit...Bit off topic though.
So what blue zone eat a high leve of highly refined grains? I think refined, ultraprocessed grains tend to be the problem. I doubt that a bowl of rice or corn on the cob is a health problem for people who are still metabolically healthy. I doubt people develop insulin resistance by eating too may ears of corn or steel cut oats every morning. Refine those grains, add sugars and fats and I think you may have problem causing foods. HFCS? Instant oatmeal with a spoonful of sugar on top? Not as healthy IMO.
So. What blue zone groups eat a lot of refrined grains? And / or sugars?
ETA Which comment about no grains were you refering to? I went back to look and can't see anything where I commented about no grains.
The Sardinians eat a lot of sourdough. That's usually made with refined flour.
As for the no sugar, the Ikarians use a fair amount of honey.
The real common factors in longevity seem to be a mostly plant based diet, a strong sense of community, and an active lifestyle.2 -
Are low-carb diets unhealthy?
Depends on the person. Maybe not for someone very active who needs carbs for energy (then again, there are low-carbers who are active as well, even athletes). And you have to take medical into account as well. Low carb may not be the wisest choice for someone with a gallbladder issue who has to keep their fats low. On the other hand, low carb (specifically keto) would probably be a wise choice for someone with seizures.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »It seems everything can lead to heart disease and cancer. What else is new?
Totally agree. Any named way of eating can be botched.
While eating carbs is optional eating fats and protein are NOT optional. So a Low Carb Low Fat diet could lead to a health train wreck for example.
Eating carbs is optional because your body has a survival response to produce glucose to feed your brain in case of starvation or famine.
I wouldn't call that a reason for eliminating them as a food group.
My body has a flight or fight mechanism for survival too. I don't go around triggering it on purpose on a regular basis.
Thankfully, people who follow a ketogenic plan and are responsible about nutrition do consume some vegetables and ignore this line of thinking.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
Except low fat never really kicked off, just like low carb is just done by a few people and not the population at large even though it's as much demonized if not more so than fat was.
I don't agree. I thought low fat diets were embraced. Most people did cut back on fats, and the percentage of their diet that was fat did go down. Fat was evil... remember this?
And then came this:
But we're arguing perception here. To me, fat was bad. Saturated fat was worse than just bad. I learned that cutting fat was good. I guess you saw different things.
There's no need to argue perception.
We have cold hard numbers after all.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
Average fat intake went down from 36 to 33% of total calories over a period of 30 years. If you call that embracing low fat then going from 50% carbs to 45% is "embracing low carb".
Edit: Ah yes, thanks Lemurcat, I totally forgot that total calorie intake of course increased over that period, meaning that total fat intake pretty much stayed the same or even increased in that time.
I guess I should have read all the replies before responding. You quoted the same information as me. Interesting how you interpret a drop in dietary intake as people not trying to lower their dietary intake. I see that differently. They tried, but did not succeed well. Ornish may have told them to try harder.
And yes, I have seen trials where they call a 10% drop in carbohydrates a low carb diet. Another failed attempt. Atkins may have told them to try harder. LOL
Energy intake went up. Meaning they didn't eat less fat.
At all.
Ever.
They instead started eating more carbs and protein (which caused the increase in calories), keeping fat about the same.
They started eating more.
If you don't understand here's the math
Men in 1971 ate an average of 2450 calories.
Out of that 42.4% were carbs, that's 1039 calories.
With 36.9% of that being fat, that's 904 calories.
And 16.5% protein, that's 404 calories.
4% are missing from that, so that's probably alcohol.
In 2000 they were eating 2618 calories.
1283 carbs,
859 fat,
406 protein
So, over 30 years, men "reduced" their fat intake by 5 grams.
Are you seriously calling that embracing low fat, seriously?
Well yes. People tried cutting fat and eating more carbs. Many low carbers find that they eat more when they eat high carb. Perhaps the increase in calories is partially because of the higher carb level.
Or maybe it was just because food was cheaper and easier to get than ever before so people ate more.
I never said people were cutting calories. I said they tried to reduce fat. (I know I did.) They did reduce their macro percentage of fat intake. That's a fact.
Or should I say, " You seriously don't see that? Seriously?"
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Which is why vegetarians and vegans are just dropping dead all over the place...substantially plant based diets are generally regarded as some of the healthiest in the world.
It's stuff like this that makes me say things like "gospel of keto" and whatnot...it's just not true...it's some kind of fantasy.
What does vegetarianism have to do with anything here? There are low carb vegetarians. There are keto vegetarians. Vegetarians do not eat just carbs. I don't believe anyone said anything against a plant based diet. I don't see what you are complaining about here...
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder what the anti low carbers, nevermind the anti-keto'ers, are thinking when they complain about that woe.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
The surveys done of the Blue Zone diets would dispute your hypothesis that low grains and sugars (I'm assuming you don't just mean added sugars here since fruits and vegetables contain sugar) are the key here.
I responded to a link that showed Okinawans ate 1% of their diets from sugars and 3% from fruits. Their diet is fairly low in sugar, and definitely low in added sugar and fruit. Their grains are 19%. I wouldn't call either of those high. I would guess that it is lower than what most North Americans eat by quite a bit.
Sure, there are sugars in veggies but not what I would call high. In sweet potatoes, which they seem to eat a LOT of, there is about 4 g of sugar in just over 3 oz. That's higher than I'd want, as someone who has insulin resistance, but it isn't real high. A banana has about 3 times as much sugar.
Your response doesn't address the fact that the Blue Zone people eat grains, which is something you seem to think people shouldn't eat. Additionally, the Blue Zoners average carb intake is 65%. All carbohydrates turn to sugar in the body.
Where does that leave your hypothesis?
Goal posts moved.
No, you moved them. I've been addressing your comment about no grains from the beginning. You keep dodging it.
I moved them? I don't think so. But fine. We'll go down the path of your argument for a bit...Bit off topic though.
So what blue zone eat a high leve of highly refined grains? I think refined, ultraprocessed grains tend to be the problem. I doubt that a bowl of rice or corn on the cob is a health problem for people who are still metabolically healthy. I doubt people develop insulin resistance by eating too may ears of corn or steel cut oats every morning. Refine those grains, add sugars and fats and I think you may have problem causing foods. HFCS? Instant oatmeal with a spoonful of sugar on top? Not as healthy IMO.
So. What blue zone groups eat a lot of refrined grains? And / or sugars?
ETA Which comment about no grains were you refering to? I went back to look and can't see anything where I commented about no grains.
The Sardinians eat a lot of sourdough. That's usually made with refined flour.
As for the no sugar, the Ikarians use a fair amount of honey.
The real common factors in longevity seem to be a mostly plant based diet, a strong sense of community, and an active lifestyle.
I've never read about the blue zones. Is there any reading/links you'd care to share. I'm curious if their sourdough and honey intake is what I would consider to be above low, or even moderate intake levels.
And again, I don't doubt a plant based diet is healthy... Whole foods generally are. It is the metabolically unhealthy who need to avoid some whole foods. Not everyone.
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »It seems everything can lead to heart disease and cancer. What else is new?
Totally agree. Any named way of eating can be botched.
While eating carbs is optional eating fats and protein are NOT optional. So a Low Carb Low Fat diet could lead to a health train wreck for example.
Eating carbs is optional because your body has a survival response to produce glucose to feed your brain in case of starvation or famine.
I wouldn't call that a reason for eliminating them as a food group.
My body has a flight or fight mechanism for survival too. I don't go around triggering it on purpose on a regular basis.
Thankfully, people who follow a ketogenic plan and are responsible about nutrition do consume some vegetables and ignore this line of thinking.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »It seems everything can lead to heart disease and cancer. What else is new?
Totally agree. Any named way of eating can be botched.
While eating carbs is optional eating fats and protein are NOT optional. So a Low Carb Low Fat diet could lead to a health train wreck for example.
Eating carbs is optional because your body has a survival response to produce glucose to feed your brain in case of starvation or famine.
I wouldn't call that a reason for eliminating them as a food group.
My body has a flight or fight mechanism for survival too. I don't go around triggering it on purpose on a regular basis.
Thankfully, people who follow a ketogenic plan and are responsible about nutrition do consume some vegetables and ignore this line of thinking.
You are thankful that people are not carnivores? Why? Based upon what?0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Which is why vegetarians and vegans are just dropping dead all over the place...substantially plant based diets are generally regarded as some of the healthiest in the world.
It's stuff like this that makes me say things like "gospel of keto" and whatnot...it's just not true...it's some kind of fantasy.
What does vegetarianism have to do with anything here? There are low carb vegetarians. There are keto vegetarians. Vegetarians do not eat just carbs. I don't believe anyone said anything against a plant based diet. I don't see what you are complaining about here...
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder what the anti low carbers, nevermind the anti-keto'ers, are thinking when they complain about that woe.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
The surveys done of the Blue Zone diets would dispute your hypothesis that low grains and sugars (I'm assuming you don't just mean added sugars here since fruits and vegetables contain sugar) are the key here.
I responded to a link that showed Okinawans ate 1% of their diets from sugars and 3% from fruits. Their diet is fairly low in sugar, and definitely low in added sugar and fruit. Their grains are 19%. I wouldn't call either of those high. I would guess that it is lower than what most North Americans eat by quite a bit.
Sure, there are sugars in veggies but not what I would call high. In sweet potatoes, which they seem to eat a LOT of, there is about 4 g of sugar in just over 3 oz. That's higher than I'd want, as someone who has insulin resistance, but it isn't real high. A banana has about 3 times as much sugar.
Your response doesn't address the fact that the Blue Zone people eat grains, which is something you seem to think people shouldn't eat. Additionally, the Blue Zoners average carb intake is 65%. All carbohydrates turn to sugar in the body.
Where does that leave your hypothesis?
Goal posts moved.
No, you moved them. I've been addressing your comment about no grains from the beginning. You keep dodging it.
I moved them? I don't think so. But fine. We'll go down the path of your argument for a bit...Bit off topic though.
So what blue zone eat a high leve of highly refined grains? I think refined, ultraprocessed grains tend to be the problem. I doubt that a bowl of rice or corn on the cob is a health problem for people who are still metabolically healthy. I doubt people develop insulin resistance by eating too may ears of corn or steel cut oats every morning. Refine those grains, add sugars and fats and I think you may have problem causing foods. HFCS? Instant oatmeal with a spoonful of sugar on top? Not as healthy IMO.
So. What blue zone groups eat a lot of refrined grains? And / or sugars?
ETA Which comment about no grains were you refering to? I went back to look and can't see anything where I commented about no grains.
The Sardinians eat a lot of sourdough. That's usually made with refined flour.
As for the no sugar, the Ikarians use a fair amount of honey.
The real common factors in longevity seem to be a mostly plant based diet, a strong sense of community, and an active lifestyle.
I've never read about the blue zones. Is there any reading/links you'd care to share. I'm curious if their sourdough and honey intake is what I would consider to be above low, or even moderate intake levels.
And again, I don't doubt a plant based diet is healthy... Whole foods generally are. It is the metabolically unhealthy who need to avoid some whole foods. Not everyone.
The in depth information is all in the book, unfortunately.0
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
- 232.5K 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