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
-
Exactly, the body only uses gluclose so it transforms all fat to glucose (or is it glycogen) that is why we have fat. To repair/develop neural tissues and to have during times of famine.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.
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.
You are pretending like it means something it does not. We aren't disagreeing that it's not an essential nutrient. As with evolution being a theory, that doesn't mean what you are trying to claim it means -- that fat is better for us and that the diet should be as low in carbs as possible.I am just reiterating (over and over) that LCHF is safe and one of the reasons is because there is no minimum carb requirement.
LCHF is safe, but since LCHF isn't no carb, this red herring about essential vs. non essential nutrients has nothing to do with it. (A no carb diet would be bad for you, but not because you'd lack essential glucose and die. Your body would take care of that. I don't think anyone is arguing that LCHF will kill you from a lack of essential nutrients, not even Campbell; it's a total strawman intended to suggest that the lower the carbs, the healthier the diet, as if we had to eat absurd amounts of fat to get in our "essential" fats. The amount of essential fat is pretty low. The discussion of macros here has nothing to do with making sure we get in enough fat or carbs, neither is an actual issue.)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.
So you are limiting SFA?1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »So far, the answer to the initial question is: From what we know, low carb diets are perfectly healthy.
I would say (and said upthread):
(1) This nonsense about carbs being inessential and fats being essential has 0 to do with the discussion about LCHF vs. any other diet, as all diets being discussed contain (potentially) plenty of everything you need for health. Your body can make glucose, LCHF isn't no carb anyway, and no one is going to accidentally eat less fat than is necessary for health just because they aren't doing HF. The sole, only reason ketomom asserted that carbs aren't essential was to try and claim that lower carbs are inherently healthier. That claim is false (glucose is not an essential nutrient, of course, for the reasons that stevencloser explained, it's just not meaningful to the discussion).
(2) Some low carb diets are perfectly healthy and some are not. To the extent they are not (including in the argument by Campbell), it's not because they lack adequate glucose. Therefore, asserting that that's the claim under discussion is at best mistaken and at worst an effort to be intentionally misleading.
0 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »Exactly, the body only uses gluclose so it transforms all fat to glucose (or is it glycogen) that is why we have fat. To repair/develop neural tissues and to have during times of famine.
No, the body doesn't convert all fat to glucose. Glycogen comes from glucose, so technically it is possible for fat to be converted to glucose and then to glycogen, but not typical. This is why LCHF dieters tend to have reduced glycogen stores... glycogen is used to create glucose at first, and then fat and protein are used to create glucose without a lot of extra glucose being produced simply to fill up glycogen reserves. Among the 3 main (yes, I'm leaving out muscle) energy sources (glucose, glycogen, and fat), glucose is the most bio-available and is the form primarily used. Glycogen and fat are mostly storage. Usually when someone eats carbs, the immediate glucose doesn't all get used (unless they eat a very small amount of carbs or exercise enough to use it immediately). It goes into storage. But you are not eating carbs every hour of every day, right? So your body will then create its own glucose by bringing it out of storage. A similar process applies to dietary protein and fat as to body protein (muscle) and fat.
Still, I don't see how this makes a low carb diet unhealthy.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.
Good for you. You probably do what I would consider a healthful version of the LCHF diet. You apparently haven't been following all the discussions on MFP where LCHF folks insist that fruit is full of sugar and therefore bad for us, and that even vegetables can be negative vs. keeping carbs down further, and that they are completely unimportant for health. So they might disagree with you as to what doing LCHF "properly" involves.
I also agree with cwolfman that there are many whole foods that are high carb and I see no reason to avoid them, but if you want to, go for it.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.
The study that shows this: http://www.vespapower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Volek-Metabolism-FASTER-2015-Final.pdf0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
Yes, of course, I only took biochem, and you?0 -
lemurcat12 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.
You are pretending like it means something it does not. We aren't disagreeing that it's not an essential nutrient. As with evolution being a theory, that doesn't mean what you are trying to claim it means -- that fat is better for us and that the diet should be as low in carbs as possible.I am just reiterating (over and over) that LCHF is safe and one of the reasons is because there is no minimum carb requirement.
LCHF is safe, but since LCHF isn't no carb, this red herring about essential vs. non essential nutrients has nothing to do with it. (A no carb diet would be bad for you, but not because you'd lack essential glucose and die. Your body would take care of that. I don't think anyone is arguing that LCHF will kill you from a lack of essential nutrients, not even Campbell; it's a total strawman intended to suggest that the lower the carbs, the healthier the diet, as if we had to eat absurd amounts of fat to get in our "essential" fats. The amount of essential fat is pretty low. The discussion of macros here has nothing to do with making sure we get in enough fat or carbs, neither is an actual issue.)
I'm not pretending anything. Just pointing out it's safety. It is. Even almost zero carb is safe. It just isn't accptable in people's minds who have been trained in the dogma of the need for grains, fruits and veggies to be the basis for a healthy diet. It doesn't have to be. Can those foods be the basis for a healthy diet? Sure! Veganism can be very healthy. Can a carnivorous diet be healthy? Sure! Both are safe (if you supplement the vegan with B12).
And fat is better for me, someone with insulin resistance, than carbs are. That's why I replaced most of my carbs with fat - mainly the grains and sugars. I kept veggies because I like them.
I don't understand where people are getting the idea that a (almost) zero carb diet is not safe? Eggs, meat, seafood and dairy.... what could be wrong with that for the typical person? It doesn't even need to be high protein.... This is a rhetorical qustion not directed at you. I wonder if vegetarianism was looked at like this in the past? Unhealthy and strange?2 -
lemurcat12 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.
You are pretending like it means something it does not. We aren't disagreeing that it's not an essential nutrient. As with evolution being a theory, that doesn't mean what you are trying to claim it means -- that fat is better for us and that the diet should be as low in carbs as possible.I am just reiterating (over and over) that LCHF is safe and one of the reasons is because there is no minimum carb requirement.
LCHF is safe, but since LCHF isn't no carb, this red herring about essential vs. non essential nutrients has nothing to do with it. (A no carb diet would be bad for you, but not because you'd lack essential glucose and die. Your body would take care of that. I don't think anyone is arguing that LCHF will kill you from a lack of essential nutrients, not even Campbell; it's a total strawman intended to suggest that the lower the carbs, the healthier the diet, as if we had to eat absurd amounts of fat to get in our "essential" fats. The amount of essential fat is pretty low. The discussion of macros here has nothing to do with making sure we get in enough fat or carbs, neither is an actual issue.)
I'm not pretending anything. Just pointing out it's safety. It is. Even almost zero carb is safe.
No one is saying it is not, at least not due to the lack of glucose. Maybe that's the reason for the disconnect? You are arguing against something no one is saying.It just isn't accptable in people's minds who have been trained in the dogma of the need for grains, fruits and veggies to be the basis for a healthy diet.
I think (as you know) that it is unhealthy to avoid vegetables without a real medical reason (like digestive issues or an allergy to all of them, which must be extremely rare). But that has nothing to do with glucose being required, as I agree the body can make glucose (and I don't really think low carbers don't get in glucose anyway, since they aren't no carbers).
If you need to you can supplement or get in everything through careful diet planning involving raw or extremely rare meat and offal, but I don't believe that most who go on about vegetables being overrated actually eat in such a way and even if that micronutrient issue is resolved I do think the evidence indicates that largely plant-based diets are healthier that those with almost no plants. But I don't say that LCHF is bad for you as a result,* because I think a LCHF diet can easily include lots of plants and be healthier (and I happen to agree that while grains can be healthy choices for those of us without celiac that they aren't particularly important to include).
*Campbell does, of course, but he also thinks that large amounts of animal protein and fat are bad for us in general, and so of course is concerned about a diet that often maximizes them. My own concern is more that if one eats 75% of one's diet in fat, most of that fat really doesn't provide much in the way of nutrients. The counter-argument (which I don't totally accept) is the one people often make here against "clean eating" or the like -- you don't get extra-credit for getting in more than you need.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
Yes, of course, I only took biochem, and you?
I figured biochem, but would guess you studied it several decades ago based on your comment about glucose:You can't make it from fat0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
Yes, of course, I only took biochem, and you?
Far as I remember, I read there is a possible roundabout way to get there but it's unlikely it actually ever happens.
Edit: Yup.
"Also, it is worth noting that it is indeed possible to convert FA's to glucose but the pathway can be a little complex and so in terms of energy storage, is not very efficient. The process involves converting Acetyl-CoA to Acetone (transported out of mitochondria to cytosol) where it's converted to Pyruvate which can then be used in the Gluconeogenesis pathway to make Glucose and eventually stored as Glycogen."
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/why-cant-fat-be-converted-into-glucose.1103292/
Not very efficient = other pathways will get preferential treatment2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
Yes, of course, I only took biochem, and you?
I figured biochem, but would guess you studied it several decades ago based on your comment about glucose:You can't make it from fat
Nope, more recently than that actually, but to your credit I did some more research. As pointed out many text books when I study (e.g. 2008) still say it cannot convert BUT there is evidence that there is a very seldom used path to convert fatty acids into carbohydrates. My text was similar to this: page 634 of the 2006 and 2008 editions of Biochemistry by Berg, Tymoczko, and Stryer:
Animals Cannot Convert Fatty Acids to Glucose
It is important to note that animals are unable to effect the net synthesis of glucose from fatty acids. Specficially, acetyl CoA cannot be converted into pyruvate or oxaloacetate in animals.
I've searched through the literature and found some evidence of pathways to convert all macros between each other and that keto will cause a rise in an enzyme called CYP2E1, which allows access to this rare pathway. It's rarely used because it's very expensive and only used when glucose is absolutely necessary. Would this cause a slight metabolic advantage in keto? Hard to say because we can't find it in long term macro studies and might indicate that even in ketosis it is rarely accessed unless protein levels too low perhaps.
I will thank you for correcting me so I could find this gap in my knowledge and I will always thank people when they show me those gaps btw.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
Yes, of course, I only took biochem, and you?
Far as I remember, I read there is a possible roundabout way to get there but it's unlikely it actually ever happens.
Edit: Yup.
"Also, it is worth noting that it is indeed possible to convert FA's to glucose but the pathway can be a little complex and so in terms of energy storage, is not very efficient. The process involves converting Acetyl-CoA to Acetone (transported out of mitochondria to cytosol) where it's converted to Pyruvate which can then be used in the Gluconeogenesis pathway to make Glucose and eventually stored as Glycogen."
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/why-cant-fat-be-converted-into-glucose.1103292/
Not very efficient = other pathways will get preferential treatment
Yes, very round about but it's also not very well explored as evidence that not all text books were upto date on that fact, or perhaps this is not yet settled science. I think the research demonstrating this path was rather sparse so I'm going to do a little more fishing on this to see where the current state of the art lies.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
Yes, of course, I only took biochem, and you?
Far as I remember, I read there is a possible roundabout way to get there but it's unlikely it actually ever happens.
Edit: Yup.
"Also, it is worth noting that it is indeed possible to convert FA's to glucose but the pathway can be a little complex and so in terms of energy storage, is not very efficient. The process involves converting Acetyl-CoA to Acetone (transported out of mitochondria to cytosol) where it's converted to Pyruvate which can then be used in the Gluconeogenesis pathway to make Glucose and eventually stored as Glycogen."
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/why-cant-fat-be-converted-into-glucose.1103292/
Not very efficient = other pathways will get preferential treatment
Right - there are other pathways. http://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2012/01/07/we-really-can-make-glucose-from-fatty/In July of 2011, a German research group revisited the question of converting fatty acids to carbohydrate by publishing a computational analysis of the most up-to-date information about human biochemistry available (9). These authors identified 22 pathways by which acetone could be converted to pyruvate that they considered likely to be important, and concluded that these pathways would be less cost-efficient than making glucose from amino acids or glycerol, but are nevertheless biochemically feasible and likely serve as supplementary modes of glucose production.
Interestingly enough, this explanation also provides a lot of awareness about some of the junk put into old biochem textbooks...0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
Yes, of course, I only took biochem, and you?
Far as I remember, I read there is a possible roundabout way to get there but it's unlikely it actually ever happens.
Edit: Yup.
"Also, it is worth noting that it is indeed possible to convert FA's to glucose but the pathway can be a little complex and so in terms of energy storage, is not very efficient. The process involves converting Acetyl-CoA to Acetone (transported out of mitochondria to cytosol) where it's converted to Pyruvate which can then be used in the Gluconeogenesis pathway to make Glucose and eventually stored as Glycogen."
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/why-cant-fat-be-converted-into-glucose.1103292/
Not very efficient = other pathways will get preferential treatment
Right - there are other pathways. http://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2012/01/07/we-really-can-make-glucose-from-fatty/In July of 2011, a German research group revisited the question of converting fatty acids to carbohydrate by publishing a computational analysis of the most up-to-date information about human biochemistry available (9). These authors identified 22 pathways by which acetone could be converted to pyruvate that they considered likely to be important, and concluded that these pathways would be less cost-efficient than making glucose from amino acids or glycerol, but are nevertheless biochemically feasible and likely serve as supplementary modes of glucose production.
Interestingly enough, this explanation also provides a lot of awareness about some of the junk put into old biochem textbooks...
It's not junk, it's what we know at the time. Science is not dogmatic, it learns and it corrects and moves on to get closer to understanding of the reality. You might be surprised how many gaps we still have in our knoweldge of muscle synthesis for example. It's mostly figured out fairly well but there are a few areas that are still not well known. That's all part of exploring our world.
ETA: I spoke a few minutes ago with my brother who went further, and more recently, into biochem and microbio and he was surpised I wasn't taught this and that fat can convert to protein as well it seems. That I need to do some more research on too. Biochem was always a facinating subject.
1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
Yes, of course, I only took biochem, and you?
Far as I remember, I read there is a possible roundabout way to get there but it's unlikely it actually ever happens.
Edit: Yup.
"Also, it is worth noting that it is indeed possible to convert FA's to glucose but the pathway can be a little complex and so in terms of energy storage, is not very efficient. The process involves converting Acetyl-CoA to Acetone (transported out of mitochondria to cytosol) where it's converted to Pyruvate which can then be used in the Gluconeogenesis pathway to make Glucose and eventually stored as Glycogen."
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/why-cant-fat-be-converted-into-glucose.1103292/
Not very efficient = other pathways will get preferential treatment
Right - there are other pathways. http://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2012/01/07/we-really-can-make-glucose-from-fatty/In July of 2011, a German research group revisited the question of converting fatty acids to carbohydrate by publishing a computational analysis of the most up-to-date information about human biochemistry available (9). These authors identified 22 pathways by which acetone could be converted to pyruvate that they considered likely to be important, and concluded that these pathways would be less cost-efficient than making glucose from amino acids or glycerol, but are nevertheless biochemically feasible and likely serve as supplementary modes of glucose production.
Interestingly enough, this explanation also provides a lot of awareness about some of the junk put into old biochem textbooks...
Your quote just says they're biochemically feasible and could, so it's not known if they're actually used. And since it says they're not cost-efficient, even if they're actually there it means they would be rarely ever used because efficiency comes first (provided a healthy body).0 -
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
Yes, of course, I only took biochem, and you?
Far as I remember, I read there is a possible roundabout way to get there but it's unlikely it actually ever happens.
Edit: Yup.
"Also, it is worth noting that it is indeed possible to convert FA's to glucose but the pathway can be a little complex and so in terms of energy storage, is not very efficient. The process involves converting Acetyl-CoA to Acetone (transported out of mitochondria to cytosol) where it's converted to Pyruvate which can then be used in the Gluconeogenesis pathway to make Glucose and eventually stored as Glycogen."
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/why-cant-fat-be-converted-into-glucose.1103292/
Not very efficient = other pathways will get preferential treatment
Right - there are other pathways. http://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2012/01/07/we-really-can-make-glucose-from-fatty/In July of 2011, a German research group revisited the question of converting fatty acids to carbohydrate by publishing a computational analysis of the most up-to-date information about human biochemistry available (9). These authors identified 22 pathways by which acetone could be converted to pyruvate that they considered likely to be important, and concluded that these pathways would be less cost-efficient than making glucose from amino acids or glycerol, but are nevertheless biochemically feasible and likely serve as supplementary modes of glucose production.
Interestingly enough, this explanation also provides a lot of awareness about some of the junk put into old biochem textbooks...
Your quote just says they're biochemically feasible and could, so it's not known if they're actually used. And since it says they're not cost-efficient, even if they're actually there it means they would be rarely ever used because efficiency comes first (provided a healthy body).
The article also indicats that there is controversy on this and most of the models seem computational. At this point I'm not sure if it's settled, which is a reason why I really am intersted in getting down to the universtiy library and looking around at the journals etc to see what the current research says.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
Yes, of course, I only took biochem, and you?
Far as I remember, I read there is a possible roundabout way to get there but it's unlikely it actually ever happens.
Edit: Yup.
"Also, it is worth noting that it is indeed possible to convert FA's to glucose but the pathway can be a little complex and so in terms of energy storage, is not very efficient. The process involves converting Acetyl-CoA to Acetone (transported out of mitochondria to cytosol) where it's converted to Pyruvate which can then be used in the Gluconeogenesis pathway to make Glucose and eventually stored as Glycogen."
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/why-cant-fat-be-converted-into-glucose.1103292/
Not very efficient = other pathways will get preferential treatment
Right - there are other pathways. http://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2012/01/07/we-really-can-make-glucose-from-fatty/In July of 2011, a German research group revisited the question of converting fatty acids to carbohydrate by publishing a computational analysis of the most up-to-date information about human biochemistry available (9). These authors identified 22 pathways by which acetone could be converted to pyruvate that they considered likely to be important, and concluded that these pathways would be less cost-efficient than making glucose from amino acids or glycerol, but are nevertheless biochemically feasible and likely serve as supplementary modes of glucose production.
Interestingly enough, this explanation also provides a lot of awareness about some of the junk put into old biochem textbooks...
It's not junk, it's what we know at the time. Science is not dogmatic, it learns and it corrects and moves on to get closer to understanding of the reality. You might be surprised how many gaps we still have in our knoweldge of muscle synthesis for example. It's mostly figured out fairly well but there are a few areas that are still not well known. That's all part of exploring our world.
ETA: I spoke a few minutes ago with my brother who went further, and more recently, into biochem and microbio and he was surpised I wasn't taught this and that fat can convert to protein as well it seems. That I need to do some more research on too. Biochem was always a facinating subject.
Fair point.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
Yes, of course, I only took biochem, and you?
Far as I remember, I read there is a possible roundabout way to get there but it's unlikely it actually ever happens.
Edit: Yup.
"Also, it is worth noting that it is indeed possible to convert FA's to glucose but the pathway can be a little complex and so in terms of energy storage, is not very efficient. The process involves converting Acetyl-CoA to Acetone (transported out of mitochondria to cytosol) where it's converted to Pyruvate which can then be used in the Gluconeogenesis pathway to make Glucose and eventually stored as Glycogen."
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/why-cant-fat-be-converted-into-glucose.1103292/
Not very efficient = other pathways will get preferential treatment
Right - there are other pathways. http://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2012/01/07/we-really-can-make-glucose-from-fatty/In July of 2011, a German research group revisited the question of converting fatty acids to carbohydrate by publishing a computational analysis of the most up-to-date information about human biochemistry available (9). These authors identified 22 pathways by which acetone could be converted to pyruvate that they considered likely to be important, and concluded that these pathways would be less cost-efficient than making glucose from amino acids or glycerol, but are nevertheless biochemically feasible and likely serve as supplementary modes of glucose production.
Interestingly enough, this explanation also provides a lot of awareness about some of the junk put into old biochem textbooks...
Your quote just says they're biochemically feasible and could, so it's not known if they're actually used. And since it says they're not cost-efficient, even if they're actually there it means they would be rarely ever used because efficiency comes first (provided a healthy body).
The article also indicats that there is controversy on this and most of the models seem computational. At this point I'm not sure if it's settled, which is a reason why I really am intersted in getting down to the universtiy library and looking around at the journals etc to see what the current research says.
Knowledge on the subject seems to be evolving at a pace to suggest there is important research that hasn't even been proposed, much less actually completed and published.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?
Here's a pretty good discussion on it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373635/
Thank, although interesting these are cherry picked studies, this one, long-term seems to refute the short-term studies http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/1/23.long. A good meta study should include results that aren't necessarily inline with the aurthors hypothis and show why they are different. I notice that the meta was published in an open journal, I'm not sure if that it's particularly a good one.
Note that there is no difference in either weight loss nor body composition in the long term study. Did I cherry pick? Well that was just a random long term study but many more show that same thing, no significant differences over time. Also, I checked a couple of the studies in the meta that you site and they actually used a HP diet that isn't really what most ketogenic dieters will follow.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
what good fats do you eat? I am working on meal planning.
should macros equal 100 percent. im trying to not eat excessive protein or fat...and want to stay at or under 50 grams carbs.0 -
goldengirl111 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
what good fats do you eat? I am working on meal planning.
should macros equal 100 percent. im trying to not eat excessive protein or fat...and want to stay at or under 50 grams carbs.
Just as a note, this is an old thread. It's fine to revive those, but typically not the most effective way to get answers to how-to questions. In addition, this particular thread is in the Debate Club part of the Community, which is dedicated to discussion/argumentation, so replies may not be . . . what you'd hope for.
Why not post your own thread, or join the low carber daily forum group? https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum
Macros on free MFP do have to total 100, because they're allocated in percents, and the idea of less than 100% of your calories is . . . confusing.
It's not possible to limit fat, limit protein, limit carbs below a certain level . . . unless you (literally) turn to alcohol to reach your calorie goal. Protein, fats and carbs are the only macronutrients, and alcohol is a sort-of macronutrient-like thing that has calories, but isn't nutritious, so it's not strictly a nutrient.
Further, your macros determine your calories (if you allocate in grams) or your calories determine your macros to a certain extend (because then MFP looks at macros as a percent of your calories, and it's got to add up to 100%).
There's nothing nutritionally wrong with getting relatively more fat, relatively more protein, or relatively more carbs - within a reasonable range - to balance out your calories. Each macro (and alcohol) has a characteristic approximate calorie level: Carbs and protein are 4 calories per gram, fats are 9 calories per gram, alcohol is 7 calories per gram. With a caveat about rounding issues, labeling law wiggle room, and some bad database entries here, your macronutrient grams, times the relevant calorie level, should add up to your calorie goal. (Don't forget to add any alcohol separately since it's not a column in your MFP diary.)
So, macro distribution is part human physiology, part individual preferences, part health management . . . and part an applied math problem.
Some pre-existing health conditions may require people to limit or carefully manage some macro. For example, diabetics need to manage/limit carbs. People with kidney disease may need to limit protein.
If you don't have any relevant health conditions (or major risks from your family history), you have some flexibility.
Protein and fats include some nutritional content (essential amino acids and essential fatty acids, respectively), that we must eat, because our bodies can't manufacture them out of anything else. (That's why they're called "essential nutrients".) Carbs are not an essential nutrient, in that strict terminology. But they are important . . . so important that history has shaped our bodily processes to manufacture carb-equivalents out of other nutrients, if we don't eat what the body needs in that category.
If your goal is weight management (gain/lose/maintain), it's the calories that matter directly. Technically, if we could stick to it as a practical thing, we could lose weight eating all carbs, all fats, or all protein . . . as long as the calorie level was right. But we wouldn't be healthy if we did that. Also, nutrition can have an indirect effect on weight management via fatigue or appetite/cravings, either of which can be increased by under-nutrition - that would be unhelpful, in a practical sense.
What is your calorie goal? Fast loss is a bad plan, so you want to reach a reasonable minimum. And in reality, you need certain amounts of each essential macro (plus some other nutrients that aren't macros and don't directly determine calorie level, like micronutrients, fiber, and beneficial phytochemicals). You can get 100% of macronutrients from any calorie level, but if the calorie level is too low, you're not getting the minimum amounts that you need for reasonable health. (There are other health reasons not to cut calories aggressively hard, but you're asking about macros.)
If you want to stay within 50 grams of carbs, then that's about 200 calories. Subtract 200 from your calorie goal, and decide how you want to allocate the other calories between protein (at 4 calories per gram) and fats (at 9 calories per gram). You need certain amounts for best results health-wise, but if there are extra calories in your goal after you get them, you can use those calories on any macro you like.
With a reasonable calorie goal, and reasonable minimums of the essential macros (protein and fats), you're not likely to have major health risks if you choose to get more of any of the macros as a healthy person, nor will it interfere with weight loss (except indirectly through appetite/fatigue, which you'd notice). (Best to limit or avoid alcohol for other reasons, of course.)
If you do have a pre-existing health condition that limits how much of one or more macros you should get, your best bet would be to consult a registered dietitian for advice, or at minimum seek out specific dietary advice about your health condition from an authoritative source such as USDA/NIH, NHS, WHO, a respected major hospital's dietary advice on the web for that condition, etc.
P.S. These days, it's believed that the only truly "bad fats" are artificial trans fats, i.e. hydrogenated fats. That said, many fortunate first world-ers with access to ample food are getting too much of saturated fat, relative to the amount of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, and too much Omega-6 fat relative to the amount of Omega-3 fats. Some possible good sources to balance things out are nuts, nut butters, some seeds (hemp and milled or ground flaxseed are particularly useful IMO), fatty cold-water fish, avocadoes.
Best wishes!
2
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