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
-
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.0 -
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
Sorry I never got back to everyone yesterday, I had a wicked migraine.0 -
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
Maybe you missed it, but @stevencloser is not trying to classify glucose as an essential nutrient. It doesn't matter that the definition is taken. It's irrelevant.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
There are only about 11 essential macro nutrients: 2 EFAs and 9 essential amino acids plus some conditionally essentials. The human body is pretty good at making what it needs from other macros. Now micros are what we should really concentrate on.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
I'm explaining why it's not an essential nutrient to reject the idea that "not essential = unnecessary". Glucose is a vital nutrient, the most vital there is, and you can be glad your body has a pathway of creating it or you wouldn't be alive, or your parents or grandparents because we would've died out ages ago.3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
The question is what that means.
As stevencloser pointed out, in this case it means that glucose is so important to the body that it can't leave it to diet alone, but must have a backup system. (Or, to put it more correctly, although still inexpertly, it was so important that there was such a disadvantage to not having the backup that we evolved to have it.)
ketomom, on the other hand, keeps trying to twist it so that it means that consuming glucose is somehow something that should be minimized, and that glucose is generally bad for us.
That is not what essential nutrient means and makes no sense.
The argument that because glucose is not an essential nutrient we should be on LCHF diets is absurd, since no one recommends a no fat or no protein diet and the amount of fat and protein that is actually needed from the diet is easy to get in pretty much any macro split anyone will consume, at least in a society with enough food, which is what we are talking about.
In a society with a famine or food shortage, of course one can die from malnutrition due to a lack of fat or protein sources, but -- again, as stevencloser pointed out -- it takes far longer than it would if our bodies could not make glucose as a backup. That glucose is so important to our bodies is NOT a good argument for the claim that carbs are unimportant or "toxic" or that keto is a more natural state or all the rest of the LCHF dogma.2 -
I just realized what this discussion reminds me of. When someone keeps repeating "but it's just a THEORY" in an effort to dismiss the evidence of evolution, and waving off when someone explains what "theory" means in scientific terms. "No, it's only a THEORY," so it can't be meaningful." Same here: "it's not ESSENTIAL, so clearly you should limit it and eat more fat and protein." That that has nothing to do with what essential actually means here, and does not logically follow? a handwave: "not essential, so not important, really, that's what essential means, right?" "Only a theory."4
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I just realized what this discussion reminds me of. When someone keeps repeating "but it's just a THEORY" in an effort to dismiss the evidence of evolution, and waving off when someone explains what "theory" means in scientific terms. "No, it's only a THEORY," so it can't be meaningful." Same here: "it's not ESSENTIAL, so clearly you should limit it and eat more fat and protein." That that has nothing to do with what essential actually means here, and does not logically follow? a handwave: "not essential, so not important, really, that's what essential means, right?" "Only a theory."
I said I wasn't going to "awesome" your posts anymore, I failed miserably.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
Sorry I never got back to everyone yesterday, I had a wicked migraine.
I must have mised that. I was under the impression that he was saying glucose is essential. I never said it was an essential nutrient. I'm the one saying that we don't need to eat it for good health.
Glucose / carbs are non-essential because you never have to eat it. The body makes it so there is no need to eat more. Just a preference to eat more.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
The question is what that means.
As stevencloser pointed out, in this case it means that glucose is so important to the body that it can't leave it to diet alone, but must have a backup system. (Or, to put it more correctly, although still inexpertly, it was so important that there was such a disadvantage to not having the backup that we evolved to have it.)
ketomom, on the other hand, keeps trying to twist it so that it means that consuming glucose is somehow something that should be minimized, and that glucose is generally bad for us.
That is not what essential nutrient means and makes no sense.
The argument that because glucose is not an essential nutrient we should be on LCHF diets is absurd, since no one recommends a no fat or no protein diet and the amount of fat and protein that is actually needed from the diet is easy to get in pretty much any macro split anyone will consume, at least in a society with enough food, which is what we are talking about.
In a society with a famine or food shortage, of course one can die from malnutrition due to a lack of fat or protein sources, but -- again, as stevencloser pointed out -- it takes far longer than it would if our bodies could not make glucose as a backup. That glucose is so important to our bodies is NOT a good argument for the claim that carbs are unimportant or "toxic" or that keto is a more natural state or all the rest of the LCHF dogma.
I'm twisting it? LOL No. I don't think so. There is only one definition of an essential nutrient. I'm using that term correctly. Something the body needs that you must consume to get.
The body needs glucose. Between 40-150g per day.... I think I said this already. Anyways. We make glucose. We don't need to eat it. Done.
We need oxygen. Does that mean we should seek out atmospheres of 40-60% oxygen instead of our lower oxygen atmosphere (what is it? 21%?). More isn't needed.
More glucose (from the diet) is also not needed. That is my point. You could use more glucose and eat more, but you don't need to.
And I never said because glucose is non-essential that we should all be LCHF. Nor did I EVER say "toxic". I don't think I am the one twisting anything here.
I said that we would die without our minimum glucose. It's true. Glucose is important. So is a large number of other chemicals in the body. But unless you are living without a functioning liver it really is a non issue. We make glucose. No one is going to die from lack of glucose. Even if you never eat a carby food.
I am just reiterating (over and over) that LCHF is safe and one of the reasons is because there is no minimum carb requirement. This thread is about LCHF safety, right? Well, low carbers don't need to worry about going too low and depriving their bodies of an essential nutrient because carbs are not essential. The body is designed to meet our glucose (because it is another important thing the body uses).1 -
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
I'm explaining why it's not an essential nutrient to reject the idea that "not essential = unnecessary". Glucose is a vital nutrient, the most vital there is, and you can be glad your body has a pathway of creating it or you wouldn't be alive, or your parents or grandparents because we would've died out ages ago.
Vital works. We can work with vital.
So.... who said glucose was unnescessary? I missed that somewhere.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
The question is what that means.
As stevencloser pointed out, in this case it means that glucose is so important to the body that it can't leave it to diet alone, but must have a backup system. (Or, to put it more correctly, although still inexpertly, it was so important that there was such a disadvantage to not having the backup that we evolved to have it.)
ketomom, on the other hand, keeps trying to twist it so that it means that consuming glucose is somehow something that should be minimized, and that glucose is generally bad for us.
That is not what essential nutrient means and makes no sense.
The argument that because glucose is not an essential nutrient we should be on LCHF diets is absurd, since no one recommends a no fat or no protein diet and the amount of fat and protein that is actually needed from the diet is easy to get in pretty much any macro split anyone will consume, at least in a society with enough food, which is what we are talking about.
In a society with a famine or food shortage, of course one can die from malnutrition due to a lack of fat or protein sources, but -- again, as stevencloser pointed out -- it takes far longer than it would if our bodies could not make glucose as a backup. That glucose is so important to our bodies is NOT a good argument for the claim that carbs are unimportant or "toxic" or that keto is a more natural state or all the rest of the LCHF dogma.
So, to summarize:
1. Glucose can come from carbs directly, or indirectly from protein and fat.
2. We need glucose, but do not need carbs.
3. Neither carbs nor glucose are considered essential nutrients, for different reasons.
4. We must eat fat/protein if we don't eat any carbs at all.
Here's my addition:
1. It is possible to have too much glucose. Our body has ways to handle that also (glycogen stores, fat stores, and in some cases: osmotic diuresis).
2. Too much carb consumption in too short of a time period leads to the things mentioned in #1 for healthy individuals. Then, if carbs are not constantly being consumed (such as while sleeping), glucose is not automatically available. So then we start getting glucose from something... glycogen, protein/muscle, or fat is converted into glucose.
3. The difference between SAD and LCHF is that the result of not eating carbs constantly to feed glucose as it is used (see #2) happens more often for those on LCHF than on SAD. Both experience the same effect, but fat adapted persons convert fat more efficiently.
So far, the answer to the initial question is: From what we know, low carb diets are perfectly healthy.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
The question is what that means.
As stevencloser pointed out, in this case it means that glucose is so important to the body that it can't leave it to diet alone, but must have a backup system. (Or, to put it more correctly, although still inexpertly, it was so important that there was such a disadvantage to not having the backup that we evolved to have it.)
ketomom, on the other hand, keeps trying to twist it so that it means that consuming glucose is somehow something that should be minimized, and that glucose is generally bad for us.
That is not what essential nutrient means and makes no sense.
The argument that because glucose is not an essential nutrient we should be on LCHF diets is absurd, since no one recommends a no fat or no protein diet and the amount of fat and protein that is actually needed from the diet is easy to get in pretty much any macro split anyone will consume, at least in a society with enough food, which is what we are talking about.
In a society with a famine or food shortage, of course one can die from malnutrition due to a lack of fat or protein sources, but -- again, as stevencloser pointed out -- it takes far longer than it would if our bodies could not make glucose as a backup. That glucose is so important to our bodies is NOT a good argument for the claim that carbs are unimportant or "toxic" or that keto is a more natural state or all the rest of the LCHF dogma.
I'm twisting it? LOL No. I don't think so. There is only one definition of an essential nutrient. I'm using that term correctly. Something the body needs that you must consume to get.
The body needs glucose. Between 40-150g per day.... I think I said this already. Anyways. We make glucose. We don't need to eat it. Done.
We need oxygen. Does that mean we should seek out atmospheres of 40-60% oxygen instead of our lower oxygen atmosphere (what is it? 21%?). More isn't needed.
More glucose (from the diet) is also not needed. That is my point. You could use more glucose and eat more, but you don't need to.
And I never said because glucose is non-essential that we should all be LCHF. Nor did I EVER say "toxic". I don't think I am the one twisting anything here.
I said that we would die without our minimum glucose. It's true. Glucose is important. So is a large number of other chemicals in the body. But unless you are living without a functioning liver it really is a non issue. We make glucose. No one is going to die from lack of glucose. Even if you never eat a carby food.
I am just reiterating (over and over) that LCHF is safe and one of the reasons is because there is no minimum carb requirement. This thread is about LCHF safety, right? Well, low carbers don't need to worry about going too low and depriving their bodies of an essential nutrient because carbs are not essential. The body is designed to meet our glucose (because it is another important thing the body uses).
Question for you then, If you need 40-150g of glucose per day and you aren't eating high protein either, then were are you getting your glucose from? You can't make it from fat so are you pulling out of your skeletal muscles?
And yes, this is an honest question because I'm not sure where you are getting enough protein or carbs from if you are trying to eat say below 20g or carbs and below 50 or 60g or protein. Are my number unrealistic?2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
You misunderstand what he is saying.
Glucose is so vital to biological function that the body will manufacture it.
That's why we don't need to ingest it.
THAT is what he's saying.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
You misunderstand what he is saying.
Glucose is so vital to biological function that the body will manufacture it.
That's why we don't need to ingest it.
THAT is what he's saying.
Yup, it's too important for you to be dependant on eating it. A single longish intense exercise session can use up your glycogen, if you couldn't create more glucose you'd simply cease functioning a short while later as your blood sugar drops towards 0.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
You misunderstand what he is saying.
Glucose is so vital to biological function that the body will manufacture it.
That's why we don't need to ingest it.
THAT is what he's saying.
Yup, it's too important for you to be dependant on eating it. A single longish intense exercise session can use up your glycogen, if you couldn't create more glucose you'd simply cease functioning a short while later as your blood sugar drops towards 0.
True IF one wasn't yet adapted to burn fat and be fueled by ketones instead of glucose.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
You misunderstand what he is saying.
Glucose is so vital to biological function that the body will manufacture it.
That's why we don't need to ingest it.
THAT is what he's saying.
Yup, it's too important for you to be dependant on eating it. A single longish intense exercise session can use up your glycogen, if you couldn't create more glucose you'd simply cease functioning a short while later as your blood sugar drops towards 0.
True IF one wasn't yet adapted to burn fat and be fueled by ketones instead of glucose.
Whats funny, if you look at many of the endurance LCHF's, the amount of glucose actually consumed is crazy. Many of them consume more carbs than I do, but they just happen to have a net low amount. In fact, some of the Keto endurance cyclist I have seen on here consume over 200g of carbs a day while training.1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
You misunderstand what he is saying.
Glucose is so vital to biological function that the body will manufacture it.
That's why we don't need to ingest it.
THAT is what he's saying.
Yup, it's too important for you to be dependant on eating it. A single longish intense exercise session can use up your glycogen, if you couldn't create more glucose you'd simply cease functioning a short while later as your blood sugar drops towards 0.
True IF one wasn't yet adapted to burn fat and be fueled by ketones instead of glucose.
Newsflash, even on keto your brain needs glucose.
Try again.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
You misunderstand what he is saying.
Glucose is so vital to biological function that the body will manufacture it.
That's why we don't need to ingest it.
THAT is what he's saying.
Yup, it's too important for you to be dependant on eating it. A single longish intense exercise session can use up your glycogen, if you couldn't create more glucose you'd simply cease functioning a short while later as your blood sugar drops towards 0.
True IF one wasn't yet adapted to burn fat and be fueled by ketones instead of glucose.
You still would need to be able to manufacture glucose internally. Ketone bodies partially but do not completely substitute as fuel for the brain.0 -
And the only reason your liver even produces ketone bodies in high amounts is because it uses all the oxaloacetate for gluconeogenesis and can't put fat through the regular breakdown process.1
-
stevencloser wrote: »And the only reason your liver even produces ketone bodies in high amounts is because it uses all the oxaloacetate for gluconeogenesis and can't put fat through the regular breakdown process.
Or you are under 50 grams of carbs and 100 grams of protein daily.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
You misunderstand what he is saying.
Glucose is so vital to biological function that the body will manufacture it.
That's why we don't need to ingest it.
THAT is what he's saying.
Which is the same thing as, "If you don't eat carbs, your body will make glucose. So you don't need to eat carbs" The only difference is the negative opinion of this process that is inserted into the explanation. Other than that, literally everyone is saying the same thing.1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
The question is what that means.
As stevencloser pointed out, in this case it means that glucose is so important to the body that it can't leave it to diet alone, but must have a backup system. (Or, to put it more correctly, although still inexpertly, it was so important that there was such a disadvantage to not having the backup that we evolved to have it.)
ketomom, on the other hand, keeps trying to twist it so that it means that consuming glucose is somehow something that should be minimized, and that glucose is generally bad for us.
That is not what essential nutrient means and makes no sense.
The argument that because glucose is not an essential nutrient we should be on LCHF diets is absurd, since no one recommends a no fat or no protein diet and the amount of fat and protein that is actually needed from the diet is easy to get in pretty much any macro split anyone will consume, at least in a society with enough food, which is what we are talking about.
In a society with a famine or food shortage, of course one can die from malnutrition due to a lack of fat or protein sources, but -- again, as stevencloser pointed out -- it takes far longer than it would if our bodies could not make glucose as a backup. That glucose is so important to our bodies is NOT a good argument for the claim that carbs are unimportant or "toxic" or that keto is a more natural state or all the rest of the LCHF dogma.
I'm twisting it? LOL No. I don't think so. There is only one definition of an essential nutrient. I'm using that term correctly. Something the body needs that you must consume to get.
The body needs glucose. Between 40-150g per day.... I think I said this already. Anyways. We make glucose. We don't need to eat it. Done.
We need oxygen. Does that mean we should seek out atmospheres of 40-60% oxygen instead of our lower oxygen atmosphere (what is it? 21%?). More isn't needed.
More glucose (from the diet) is also not needed. That is my point. You could use more glucose and eat more, but you don't need to.
And I never said because glucose is non-essential that we should all be LCHF. Nor did I EVER say "toxic". I don't think I am the one twisting anything here.
I said that we would die without our minimum glucose. It's true. Glucose is important. So is a large number of other chemicals in the body. But unless you are living without a functioning liver it really is a non issue. We make glucose. No one is going to die from lack of glucose. Even if you never eat a carby food.
I am just reiterating (over and over) that LCHF is safe and one of the reasons is because there is no minimum carb requirement. This thread is about LCHF safety, right? Well, low carbers don't need to worry about going too low and depriving their bodies of an essential nutrient because carbs are not essential. The body is designed to meet our glucose (because it is another important thing the body uses).
Question for you then, If you need 40-150g of glucose per day and you aren't eating high protein either, then were are you getting your glucose from? You can't make it from fat so are you pulling out of your skeletal muscles?
And yes, this is an honest question because I'm not sure where you are getting enough protein or carbs from if you are trying to eat say below 20g or carbs and below 50 or 60g or protein. Are my number unrealistic?
Here's a pretty good discussion on it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373635/0 -
Many low-carb diets require that you only consume 15 to 20per cent of your total calories from carbs, which often eliminates nutritionally rich plant-based and complex carbohydrate foods that prevent diseases and promote health.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2569612/Are-low-carb-diets-BAD-Nutrition-expert-claims-giving-grains-lead-heart-disease-cancer.html#ixzz4O7y88qxR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
From the article... And apparently from someone that has never done a low carb diet "properly"
I eat TONS of vegetables. I also eat nuts, berries, peaches, apples sweet potatos legumes. *Lean*Beef, Fish, chicken, turkey.
What I don't eat or need Bread, Pasta, rice, russet potato. Candy. Sugar and Starch.
This article and many like it mistakenly assume that low-carbers aren't eating any vegetables or fruit. That's not the truth. Did you know ONE strawberry has like 5 calories. It's also an excellent source of vitamin C.
Starchy vegetables and bread products have a TON of calories by comparison to their *natural* counterparts and FAR FAR FAR FAR fewer micro nutrients.
So I get my calories from meat, vegetables, GOOD fats, and fruit. Just not overly processed foods down the grocery story aisles. My cholesterol is WAY DOWN because of it too.
So no "low carb" diets are not bad. Because for it to be high carb you need food that won't provide you essential micros. Low carb actually lays out rules that encourages you to eat large amounts of HEALTHY veggetables. Where else are you going to get your carbs if you don't get them from calorie laden breads, pastas, and rice?
Now *No Carb* diets are horrible for your kidneys and brain. Your brain needs glucose to operate and you can get that from your Vegetables, Beans, and Fruit.
Does it mean that you should eat a diet full of sausage and processed meat? No gawd no. And most people on these diets know that. Check out Paleo or Primal diets. Pre-packaged saturated fat ladened meat is not on the diet.0 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »Many low-carb diets require that you only consume 15 to 20per cent of your total calories from carbs, which often eliminates nutritionally rich plant-based and complex carbohydrate foods that prevent diseases and promote health.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2569612/Are-low-carb-diets-BAD-Nutrition-expert-claims-giving-grains-lead-heart-disease-cancer.html#ixzz4O7y88qxR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
From the article... And apparently from someone that has never done a low carb diet "properly"
I eat TONS of vegetables. I also eat nuts, berries, peaches, apples sweet potatos legumes. *Lean*Beef, Fish, chicken, turkey.
What I don't eat or need Bread, Pasta, rice, russet potato. Candy. Sugar and Starch.
This article and many like it mistakenly assume that low-carbers aren't eating any vegetables or fruit. That's not the truth. Did you know ONE strawberry has like 5 calories. It's also an excellent source of vitamin C.
Starchy vegetables and bread products have a TON of calories by comparison to their *natural* counterparts and FAR FAR FAR FAR fewer micro nutrients.
So I get my calories from meat, vegetables, GOOD fats, and fruit. Just not overly processed foods down the grocery story aisles. My cholesterol is WAY DOWN because of it too.
So no "low carb" diets are not bad. Because for it to be high carb you need food that won't provide you essential micros. Low carb actually lays out rules that encourages you to eat large amounts of HEALTHY veggetables. Where else are you going to get your carbs if you don't get them from calorie laden breads, pastas, and rice?
Now *No Carb* diets are horrible for your kidneys and brain. Your brain needs glucose to operate and you can get that from your Vegetables, Beans, and Fruit.
Does it mean that you should eat a diet full of sausage and processed meat? No gawd no. And most people on these diets know that. Check out Paleo or Primal diets. Pre-packaged saturated fat ladened meat is not on the diet.
Ironically, many keto folks here preach that vegetables aren't necessary and are overrated...
As to the bolded...starchy vegetables are natural...and a potato really isn't terribly calorie dense...and are quite nutritious actually...
...To eat higher carb doesn't require eating a bunch of overly processed foods that don't provide essential nutrients...please...srsly...by this logic most vegetarians and vegans and people who otherwise eat a substantively plant based diet would be stuffing their faces with crap all day...what about whole oats, legumes, lentils...and yeah, whole food starches like potatoes and sweet potatoes are great and nutritionally rich.
4 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »Where else are you going to get your carbs if you don't get them from calorie laden breads, pastas, and rice?
Off the top of my head: sweet potatoes, butternut squash, beans, whole grains, bananas, or pineapple?
You seem to be saying that a high carbohydrate diet, in and of itself, is somehow going to be nutrient-deficient. This is as ridiculous as saying that a low carbohydrate diet, in and of itself is nutrient-deficient. There are lots of ways to eat higher in carbohydrates and still meet all your macro- and micro-nutrient goals. I eat a diet that is very high in carbohydrates. I don't regularly eat bread, pasta, or rice (although I do have them when I want them). There is nothing wrong with starchy vegetables or grains (although, like many calorie-dense foods, you do want to make sure you're keeping track of how much you're eating if your weight is a concern).2 -
sorry for board hogging but this is from wikipediaThe China Study examines the relationship between the consumption of animal products (including dairy) and chronic illnesses such as coronary heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and bowel cancer.[3] The authors conclude that people who eat a whole-food, plant-based vegan diet—avoiding all animal products, including beef, pork, poultry, fish, eggs, cheese, and milk, and reducing their intake of processed foods and refined carbohydrates—will escape, reduce, or reverse the development of numerous diseases. They write that "eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy".[4]
But I would like to point out that the low carb diets also reduce their intake of processed and refined carbohydrates. Common denominator?
Also I want to point out that several doctors have been trying to get the WHO to encourage governments to effectively tax or raise the cost of red meat. Humans have been safely eating red meat for thousands of years. Should it be eaten every day? No. Especially in our society. However it is a great source of extremely bio-available iron and other micros that we need.
Does low carb or vegan work for everyone? No, But I would be willing to bet a look at your ancestry would probably help determine which type of diet works best for you.
ie Native American and Aboriginal - Paleo/Primal
Scandanavian Fish and Grains.
I'm waiting for THAT study to come out.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
The question is what that means.
As stevencloser pointed out, in this case it means that glucose is so important to the body that it can't leave it to diet alone, but must have a backup system. (Or, to put it more correctly, although still inexpertly, it was so important that there was such a disadvantage to not having the backup that we evolved to have it.)
ketomom, on the other hand, keeps trying to twist it so that it means that consuming glucose is somehow something that should be minimized, and that glucose is generally bad for us.
That is not what essential nutrient means and makes no sense.
The argument that because glucose is not an essential nutrient we should be on LCHF diets is absurd, since no one recommends a no fat or no protein diet and the amount of fat and protein that is actually needed from the diet is easy to get in pretty much any macro split anyone will consume, at least in a society with enough food, which is what we are talking about.
In a society with a famine or food shortage, of course one can die from malnutrition due to a lack of fat or protein sources, but -- again, as stevencloser pointed out -- it takes far longer than it would if our bodies could not make glucose as a backup. That glucose is so important to our bodies is NOT a good argument for the claim that carbs are unimportant or "toxic" or that keto is a more natural state or all the rest of the LCHF dogma.
I'm twisting it? LOL No. I don't think so. There is only one definition of an essential nutrient. I'm using that term correctly. Something the body needs that you must consume to get.
The body needs glucose. Between 40-150g per day.... I think I said this already. Anyways. We make glucose. We don't need to eat it. Done.
We need oxygen. Does that mean we should seek out atmospheres of 40-60% oxygen instead of our lower oxygen atmosphere (what is it? 21%?). More isn't needed.
More glucose (from the diet) is also not needed. That is my point. You could use more glucose and eat more, but you don't need to.
And I never said because glucose is non-essential that we should all be LCHF. Nor did I EVER say "toxic". I don't think I am the one twisting anything here.
I said that we would die without our minimum glucose. It's true. Glucose is important. So is a large number of other chemicals in the body. But unless you are living without a functioning liver it really is a non issue. We make glucose. No one is going to die from lack of glucose. Even if you never eat a carby food.
I am just reiterating (over and over) that LCHF is safe and one of the reasons is because there is no minimum carb requirement. This thread is about LCHF safety, right? Well, low carbers don't need to worry about going too low and depriving their bodies of an essential nutrient because carbs are not essential. The body is designed to meet our glucose (because it is another important thing the body uses).
Question for you then, If you need 40-150g of glucose per day and you aren't eating high protein either, then were are you getting your glucose from? You can't make it from fat so are you pulling out of your skeletal muscles?
And yes, this is an honest question because I'm not sure where you are getting enough protein or carbs from if you are trying to eat say below 20g or carbs and below 50 or 60g or protein. Are my number unrealistic?
First, the answer is yes... dietary protein or body protein (muscles).
Second, it is possible to make glucose from fat. I would suggest that the idea that it isn't possible must come from someone not up to date on the latest science; but with 40 years of progressive research on the topic, "latest" doesn't seem to be the right word.0 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »sorry for board hogging but this is from wikipediaThe China Study examines the relationship between the consumption of animal products (including dairy) and chronic illnesses such as coronary heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and bowel cancer.[3] The authors conclude that people who eat a whole-food, plant-based vegan diet—avoiding all animal products, including beef, pork, poultry, fish, eggs, cheese, and milk, and reducing their intake of processed foods and refined carbohydrates—will escape, reduce, or reverse the development of numerous diseases. They write that "eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy".[4]
But I would like to point out that the low carb diets also reduce their intake of processed and refined carbohydrates. Common denominator?
Also I want to point out that several doctors have been trying to get the WHO to encourage governments to effectively tax or raise the cost of red meat. Humans have been safely eating red meat for thousands of years. Should it be eaten every day? No. Especially in our society. However it is a great source of extremely bio-available iron and other micros that we need.
Does low carb or vegan work for everyone? No, But I would be willing to bet a look at your ancestry would probably help determine which type of diet works best for you.
ie Native American and Aboriginal - Paleo/Primal
Scandanavian Fish and Grains.
I'm waiting for THAT study to come out.
What do you mean by "work"? Do you think there are people who would fail to maintain health on a low carbohydrate diet? I'm curious what research you're drawing on for that conclusion.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