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.
CICO is not the whole equation
Replies
-
My god so many on here are just total D-bags - no wonder there are so many messed up people in this world. Forget debating carbs and sugar and check into a mental health professional -and it would help if some of you got a life outside of here also.
Life's rough get a helmet. Sometimes people disagree with you...6 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »What I find interesting is that, why do humans tend to settle on diets that are generally higher in carbs? Carbs in traditional diets in most places often are the largest contributor to energy. There are exceptions in extreme environments like the inuits, which still manage to eat an average of 15-20% carbs or much higher than most keto dieters, but the general trend appears to be leaning towards carbs almost everywhere.
Even modern diets everywhere appear to gravitate towards carbs as the highest contributor to energy. Interestingly, this trend scales up and down with average energy intake.World: 2780 kcal/person/day (Carbohydrates: 63%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 26%)
Developed countries: 3420 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 53%, Proteins: 12%, Fats: 34%
Developing World: 2630 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 67%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 23%
Sub-Saharan Africa: 2240 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 72%, Proteins: 10%, Fats: 19%
Central Africa: 1820 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 75%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 26%
Outside of personal preference, consuming an adequate amount of carbs appears to be the natural tendency of humans. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future carbs do prove to beneficial outside of the nutrients attached to them like fat was, but even if this doesn't happen I find dubbing such a diet as inferior to be an odd claim.
I suspect that most places carbs are a staple because they are an inexpensive source of calories -- rice, potatoes, wheat, other grains, sweet potatoes or yams some places.
I'd say that's probably pretty accurate...
Even as a kid, we were pretty poor...quality carbohydrates were my mom's go to...stuff that remains staples for me today...lots of oats (even for dinner many nights), beans, lentils, potato, potato, potato and lots of veg (eeew....at least at the time) We always had meat on Sunday; usually a pot roast...as for other days of the week, it just depended on where we were in my dad's payroll cycle. As I recall, it was mainly ground beef dishes when we had meat during the week.
For much of my childhood, my dad worked late and wouldn't get home until we were all in bed...my mom always left him a cooked baked potato for dinner...I swear that guy had a baked potato for dinner, five nights per week for at least 3-4 years...
There is that guy who ate potatoes for a year... I guess your dad pre-dated him.
1 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.
Or you could say that eating carbs is overkill ince we already make all the glucose we need. Sort of like taking vitamin D when you live in the tropics and work outdoors.
I like carbs, I don't think they are necessary for good health, but I like them and enjoy eating them Sadly, my body doesn't do well with many though.
Consuming 50 + % of your diet in fats is not necessary for health either....
Meh. It's that or protein, and excess protein is not helpful, at all, for insulin resistance.
Well there are more optimal levels of protein, especially during weight loss. But it would be interesting to know at what point protein starts to interfere with IR.
It think the answer would vary according to individual circumstances. Protein raises insulin. For some of us trying to keep insulin (and BG) lower, excess protein is not helpful. BG tends to go up with it too.
I think Attia had some comments on that. He went from high to moderate protein.
Interesting question though...0 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.
Or you could say that eating carbs is overkill ince we already make all the glucose we need. Sort of like taking vitamin D when you live in the tropics and work outdoors.
I like carbs, I don't think they are necessary for good health, but I like them and enjoy eating them Sadly, my body doesn't do well with many though.
Consuming 50 + % of your diet in fats is not necessary for health either....
Meh. It's that or protein, and excess protein is not helpful, at all, for insulin resistance.
great, so we have established that carbs, protein, and fats are not necessary for health.
lots of things are not necessary, does not make them bad.
?
Um, no. Carbs are not an essential macronutrient. You know that.
I never said that if things are not necessary, they are bad. I said, as someone with insulin resistance, more protein is not better.
I think you want everyone to embrace carbs as good for you, or benign. It just isn't like that for everyone.2 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.
Or you could say that eating carbs is overkill ince we already make all the glucose we need. Sort of like taking vitamin D when you live in the tropics and work outdoors.
I like carbs, I don't think they are necessary for good health, but I like them and enjoy eating them Sadly, my body doesn't do well with many though.
I am not sure your analogy holds. My body cannot synthesize adequate vitamin D, even in the summer when I spend a lot of time outside. Given some of the more recent studies that suggest that the current recommended intake of vitamin D is way too low, and that perhaps three-quarters of the population of the US is deficient, I don't think that you can rely on the body to produce sufficient, which would be much less then optimal, quantities of vitamin D.
The same can be said of the conversion of alpha-linolenic acid to the essential FAs docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid. Clearly helpful from an evolutionary perspective for the people that did not have access to DHA and EPA, but the synthesis capability is only enough to keep you alive, not to let you thrive. The more interesting health benefits of DHA and EPA show up when higher quantities of it are consumed directly.
You may thrive on low carb, but I do not. After quite a few experiments with low carb and keto myself, I thrive on moderate to high carb intake.
Yeah, it might not have been the best analogy. I just threw it out there in response to the statement that "glucose is so important and that is why the body makes it own" argument for people to eat carbs. Technically speaking, if the body makes it, one doesn't have to eat it. There will never be a glucose deficiency.
But I am glad that you found what works for you. Higher carb used to work for me. Then it didn't. I wish it still did.
Metabolically healthy people seem to be able to thrive on keto or high carb (health wise) if the diets are not based on highly processed foods. The rest of us seem to do better on fewer carbs, generally speaking.
0 -
Feels like the OP is a strawman argument. I don't think anyone says the nutritional value of your calories is irrelevant, of course the vitamins and micro nutrients matter as well as the proportion of fat, protein, carbs etc.
I think CICO is like a simple compass, it can point you in the right general direction, but there are many paths between two destinations that will change the length of the trip.5 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.
Or you could say that eating carbs is overkill ince we already make all the glucose we need. Sort of like taking vitamin D when you live in the tropics and work outdoors.
I like carbs, I don't think they are necessary for good health, but I like them and enjoy eating them Sadly, my body doesn't do well with many though.
I am not sure your analogy holds. My body cannot synthesize adequate vitamin D, even in the summer when I spend a lot of time outside. Given some of the more recent studies that suggest that the current recommended intake of vitamin D is way too low, and that perhaps three-quarters of the population of the US is deficient, I don't think that you can rely on the body to produce sufficient, which would be much less then optimal, quantities of vitamin D.
The same can be said of the conversion of alpha-linolenic acid to the essential FAs docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid. Clearly helpful from an evolutionary perspective for the people that did not have access to DHA and EPA, but the synthesis capability is only enough to keep you alive, not to let you thrive. The more interesting health benefits of DHA and EPA show up when higher quantities of it are consumed directly.
You may thrive on low carb, but I do not. After quite a few experiments with low carb and keto myself, I thrive on moderate to high carb intake.
Yeah, it might not have been the best analogy. I just threw it out there in response to the statement that "glucose is so important and that is why the body makes it own" argument for people to eat carbs. Technically speaking, if the body makes it, one doesn't have to eat it. There will never be a glucose deficiency.
But I am glad that you found what works for you. Higher carb used to work for me. Then it didn't. I wish it still did.
Metabolically healthy people seem to be able to thrive on keto or high carb (health wise) if the diets are not based on highly processed foods. The rest of us seem to do better on fewer carbs, generally speaking.
This really comes down to the question of, what is optimal for the person and what they are trying to achieve. For someone trying to gain muscle or doing a lot of training, carbs are highly beneficial as they support recover and are anti-catabolic which allow proteins to be used for muscle repair/growth. Even when I work with people who are following keto, I am careful of adequate protein (spread it out through the day as well, to optimize protein synthesis) and I time nutrients (particularly carbs and protein around training. By doing this, one of the woman I worked with, was able to lose 9 lbs of fat and gain 6lbs of lean body mass in 6 months (and yes, I recognize that lbm is more than muscle). All with a simple, yet effective, free weight routine. And for full disclosure, some of the benefit was noob gains.
So while carbs are non essential, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be considered in part of making a plan that is optimal to address satiety, and to support goals. If the goal is weight loss, that is one thing. If the goal is to gain or maintain muscle during weight loss, it's another thing.2 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.
Or you could say that eating carbs is overkill ince we already make all the glucose we need. Sort of like taking vitamin D when you live in the tropics and work outdoors.
I like carbs, I don't think they are necessary for good health, but I like them and enjoy eating them Sadly, my body doesn't do well with many though.
Consuming 50 + % of your diet in fats is not necessary for health either....
Meh. It's that or protein, and excess protein is not helpful, at all, for insulin resistance.
great, so we have established that carbs, protein, and fats are not necessary for health.
lots of things are not necessary, does not make them bad.
?
Um, no. Carbs are not an essential macronutrient. You know that.
I never said that if things are not necessary, they are bad. I said, as someone with insulin resistance, more protein is not better.
I think you want everyone to embrace carbs as good for you, or benign. It just isn't like that for everyone.
Nope, I just don't think they are evil , like you do...1 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.
Or you could say that eating carbs is overkill ince we already make all the glucose we need. Sort of like taking vitamin D when you live in the tropics and work outdoors.
I like carbs, I don't think they are necessary for good health, but I like them and enjoy eating them Sadly, my body doesn't do well with many though.
I am not sure your analogy holds. My body cannot synthesize adequate vitamin D, even in the summer when I spend a lot of time outside. Given some of the more recent studies that suggest that the current recommended intake of vitamin D is way too low, and that perhaps three-quarters of the population of the US is deficient, I don't think that you can rely on the body to produce sufficient, which would be much less then optimal, quantities of vitamin D.
The same can be said of the conversion of alpha-linolenic acid to the essential FAs docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid. Clearly helpful from an evolutionary perspective for the people that did not have access to DHA and EPA, but the synthesis capability is only enough to keep you alive, not to let you thrive. The more interesting health benefits of DHA and EPA show up when higher quantities of it are consumed directly.
You may thrive on low carb, but I do not. After quite a few experiments with low carb and keto myself, I thrive on moderate to high carb intake.
Yeah, it might not have been the best analogy. I just threw it out there in response to the statement that "glucose is so important and that is why the body makes it own" argument for people to eat carbs. Technically speaking, if the body makes it, one doesn't have to eat it. There will never be a glucose deficiency.
But I am glad that you found what works for you. Higher carb used to work for me. Then it didn't. I wish it still did.
Metabolically healthy people seem to be able to thrive on keto or high carb (health wise) if the diets are not based on highly processed foods. The rest of us seem to do better on fewer carbs, generally speaking.
This really comes down to the question of, what is optimal for the person and what they are trying to achieve. For someone trying to gain muscle or doing a lot of training, carbs are highly beneficial as they support recover and are anti-catabolic which allow proteins to be used for muscle repair/growth. Even when I work with people who are following keto, I am careful of adequate protein (spread it out through the day as well, to optimize protein synthesis) and I time nutrients (particularly carbs and protein around training. By doing this, one of the woman I worked with, was able to lose 9 lbs of fat and gain 6lbs of lean body mass in 6 months (and yes, I recognize that lbm is more than muscle). All with a simple, yet effective, free weight routine. And for full disclosure, some of the benefit was noob gains.
So while carbs are non essential, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be considered in part of making a plan that is optimal to address satiety, and to support goals. If the goal is weight loss, that is one thing. If the goal is to gain or maintain muscle during weight loss, it's another thing.
Yes. Carbs can definitely have their place for some people. They may help with some things, like muscle gains.
I guess my response is the LCHF equivalent to others responding to sugar is the devil. No. Sugar is not the devil. No. A lot of carbs are not needed for a healthy diet.
Sure, they can help some people but are they needed? Necessary? Not usually unless you have some extreme goals. Some might prefer a higher carb diet, perhaps they feel a bit better on it or want the extra insulin, but I think it is a mostly a preference. I could be wrong... I can't think of any health conditions that benefit from a higher carb diet. (On the other hand, a whole foods, unrefined higher carb diet may be beneficial.)
1 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.
Or you could say that eating carbs is overkill ince we already make all the glucose we need. Sort of like taking vitamin D when you live in the tropics and work outdoors.
I like carbs, I don't think they are necessary for good health, but I like them and enjoy eating them Sadly, my body doesn't do well with many though.
Consuming 50 + % of your diet in fats is not necessary for health either....
Meh. It's that or protein, and excess protein is not helpful, at all, for insulin resistance.
great, so we have established that carbs, protein, and fats are not necessary for health.
lots of things are not necessary, does not make them bad.
?
Um, no. Carbs are not an essential macronutrient. You know that.
I never said that if things are not necessary, they are bad. I said, as someone with insulin resistance, more protein is not better.
I think you want everyone to embrace carbs as good for you, or benign. It just isn't like that for everyone.
Nope, I just don't think they are evil , like you do...
LOL I think you may be projecting just a tiny bit.2 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.
Or you could say that eating carbs is overkill ince we already make all the glucose we need. Sort of like taking vitamin D when you live in the tropics and work outdoors.
I like carbs, I don't think they are necessary for good health, but I like them and enjoy eating them Sadly, my body doesn't do well with many though.
I am not sure your analogy holds. My body cannot synthesize adequate vitamin D, even in the summer when I spend a lot of time outside. Given some of the more recent studies that suggest that the current recommended intake of vitamin D is way too low, and that perhaps three-quarters of the population of the US is deficient, I don't think that you can rely on the body to produce sufficient, which would be much less then optimal, quantities of vitamin D.
The same can be said of the conversion of alpha-linolenic acid to the essential FAs docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid. Clearly helpful from an evolutionary perspective for the people that did not have access to DHA and EPA, but the synthesis capability is only enough to keep you alive, not to let you thrive. The more interesting health benefits of DHA and EPA show up when higher quantities of it are consumed directly.
You may thrive on low carb, but I do not. After quite a few experiments with low carb and keto myself, I thrive on moderate to high carb intake.
Yeah, it might not have been the best analogy. I just threw it out there in response to the statement that "glucose is so important and that is why the body makes it own" argument for people to eat carbs. Technically speaking, if the body makes it, one doesn't have to eat it. There will never be a glucose deficiency.
But I am glad that you found what works for you. Higher carb used to work for me. Then it didn't. I wish it still did.
Metabolically healthy people seem to be able to thrive on keto or high carb (health wise) if the diets are not based on highly processed foods. The rest of us seem to do better on fewer carbs, generally speaking.
I would not argue with that. I have seen some good studies that suggest that LC is a good choice to try for people with existing metabolic syndrome.1 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.
Or you could say that eating carbs is overkill ince we already make all the glucose we need. Sort of like taking vitamin D when you live in the tropics and work outdoors.
I like carbs, I don't think they are necessary for good health, but I like them and enjoy eating them Sadly, my body doesn't do well with many though.
Consuming 50 + % of your diet in fats is not necessary for health either....
Meh. It's that or protein, and excess protein is not helpful, at all, for insulin resistance.
great, so we have established that carbs, protein, and fats are not necessary for health.
lots of things are not necessary, does not make them bad.
?
Um, no. Carbs are not an essential macronutrient. You know that.
I never said that if things are not necessary, they are bad. I said, as someone with insulin resistance, more protein is not better.
I think you want everyone to embrace carbs as good for you, or benign. It just isn't like that for everyone.
Nope, I just don't think they are evil , like you do...
LOL I think you may be projecting just a tiny bit.
Nope, not even a smidgon ...0 -
Yes. Carbs can definitely have their place for some people. They may help with some things, like muscle gains.
I guess my response is the LCHF equivalent to others responding to sugar is the devil. No. Sugar is not the devil. No. A lot of carbs are not needed for a healthy diet.
Sure, they can help some people but are they needed? Necessary? Not usually unless you have some extreme goals. Some might prefer a higher carb diet, perhaps they feel a bit better on it or want the extra insulin, but I think it is a mostly a preference. I could be wrong... I can't think of any health conditions that benefit from a higher carb diet. (On the other hand, a whole foods, unrefined higher carb diet may be beneficial.)
Hypoglycemia can benefit from more consistent and high carbs. Diverticulitis prevention is largely based on high fiber and recommended to get larger amounts of whole grains. Many people with gallbladder issues have to limit fats, as it causes GI discomfort and often diarrhea. Those are just some off hand. I do think that many people would benefit from lower carbs, especially inactive individuals. But, as you become more active, the need for additional energy is going to be beneficial.
6 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.
Or you could say that eating carbs is overkill ince we already make all the glucose we need. Sort of like taking vitamin D when you live in the tropics and work outdoors.
I like carbs, I don't think they are necessary for good health, but I like them and enjoy eating them Sadly, my body doesn't do well with many though.
Consuming 50 + % of your diet in fats is not necessary for health either....
Meh. It's that or protein, and excess protein is not helpful, at all, for insulin resistance.
great, so we have established that carbs, protein, and fats are not necessary for health.
lots of things are not necessary, does not make them bad.
?
Um, no. Carbs are not an essential macronutrient. You know that.
I never said that if things are not necessary, they are bad. I said, as someone with insulin resistance, more protein is not better.
I think you want everyone to embrace carbs as good for you, or benign. It just isn't like that for everyone.
Nope, I just don't think they are evil , like you do...
LOL I think you may be projecting just a tiny bit.
Nope, not even a smidgon ...
Guys, we get it. You won't agree and right now it's just getting pedantic. Seriously, just call it because it's just getting sad. We know you two will never agree on any issue no matter what.10 -
Yes. Carbs can definitely have their place for some people. They may help with some things, like muscle gains.
I guess my response is the LCHF equivalent to others responding to sugar is the devil. No. Sugar is not the devil. No. A lot of carbs are not needed for a healthy diet.
Sure, they can help some people but are they needed? Necessary? Not usually unless you have some extreme goals. Some might prefer a higher carb diet, perhaps they feel a bit better on it or want the extra insulin, but I think it is a mostly a preference. I could be wrong... I can't think of any health conditions that benefit from a higher carb diet. (On the other hand, a whole foods, unrefined higher carb diet may be beneficial.)
Hypoglycemia can benefit from more consistent and high carbs. Diverticulitis prevention is largely based on high fiber and recommended to get larger amounts of whole grains. Many people with gallbladder issues have to limit fats, as it causes GI discomfort and often diarrhea. Those are just some off hand. I do think that many people would benefit from lower carbs, especially inactive individuals. But, as you become more active, the need for additional energy is going to be beneficial.
people with FH(familial hypercholesterolemia) also have to limit their fats. 1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Yes. Carbs can definitely have their place for some people. They may help with some things, like muscle gains.
I guess my response is the LCHF equivalent to others responding to sugar is the devil. No. Sugar is not the devil. No. A lot of carbs are not needed for a healthy diet.
Sure, they can help some people but are they needed? Necessary? Not usually unless you have some extreme goals. Some might prefer a higher carb diet, perhaps they feel a bit better on it or want the extra insulin, but I think it is a mostly a preference. I could be wrong... I can't think of any health conditions that benefit from a higher carb diet. (On the other hand, a whole foods, unrefined higher carb diet may be beneficial.)
Hypoglycemia can benefit from more consistent and high carbs. Diverticulitis prevention is largely based on high fiber and recommended to get larger amounts of whole grains. Many people with gallbladder issues have to limit fats, as it causes GI discomfort and often diarrhea. Those are just some off hand. I do think that many people would benefit from lower carbs, especially inactive individuals. But, as you become more active, the need for additional energy is going to be beneficial.
people with FH(familial hypercholesterolemia) also have to limit their fats.
I am glad you posted that. I thought of you, but seriously for the life of me, couldn't remember what your condition was called. I really need to go to bed, lol.2 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Yes. Carbs can definitely have their place for some people. They may help with some things, like muscle gains.
I guess my response is the LCHF equivalent to others responding to sugar is the devil. No. Sugar is not the devil. No. A lot of carbs are not needed for a healthy diet.
Sure, they can help some people but are they needed? Necessary? Not usually unless you have some extreme goals. Some might prefer a higher carb diet, perhaps they feel a bit better on it or want the extra insulin, but I think it is a mostly a preference. I could be wrong... I can't think of any health conditions that benefit from a higher carb diet. (On the other hand, a whole foods, unrefined higher carb diet may be beneficial.)
Hypoglycemia can benefit from more consistent and high carbs. Diverticulitis prevention is largely based on high fiber and recommended to get larger amounts of whole grains. Many people with gallbladder issues have to limit fats, as it causes GI discomfort and often diarrhea. Those are just some off hand. I do think that many people would benefit from lower carbs, especially inactive individuals. But, as you become more active, the need for additional energy is going to be beneficial.
people with FH(familial hypercholesterolemia) also have to limit their fats.
I am glad you posted that. I thought of you, but seriously for the life of me, couldn't remember what your condition was called. I really need to go to bed, lol.
lol1 -
3rdof7sisters wrote: »There seems to be a lot of experts on MFP, ready to tell others what they should be doing, or what they are doing wrong. If that is what you want, great, go for it, and congratulations on being where you want to be.
Some of us would be content with "just" a normal weight. There is nothing wrong with that.
For many of us, that is an enormous step in the right direction, with a lot of obvious improvements.
Such as, being able to walk up stairs without becoming winded. Vast improvement in movement because weight is off. No longer snoring. Being able to cross our legs, tie our shoes. Being able to keep up with our kids, or grandkids. Etc...............
Exactly3 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.
Or you could say that eating carbs is overkill ince we already make all the glucose we need. Sort of like taking vitamin D when you live in the tropics and work outdoors.
I like carbs, I don't think they are necessary for good health, but I like them and enjoy eating them Sadly, my body doesn't do well with many though.
Consuming 50 + % of your diet in fats is not necessary for health either....
Meh. It's that or protein, and excess protein is not helpful, at all, for insulin resistance.
great, so we have established that carbs, protein, and fats are not necessary for health.
lots of things are not necessary, does not make them bad.
?
Um, no. Carbs are not an essential macronutrient. You know that.
I never said that if things are not necessary, they are bad. I said, as someone with insulin resistance, more protein is not better.
I think you want everyone to embrace carbs as good for you, or benign. It just isn't like that for everyone.
Nope, I just don't think they are evil , like you do...
LOL I think you may be projecting just a tiny bit.
Nope, not even a smidgon ...
Guys, we get it. You won't agree and right now it's just getting pedantic. Seriously, just call it because it's just getting sad. We know you two will never agree on any issue no matter what.
Apologies.4 -
Yes. Carbs can definitely have their place for some people. They may help with some things, like muscle gains.
I guess my response is the LCHF equivalent to others responding to sugar is the devil. No. Sugar is not the devil. No. A lot of carbs are not needed for a healthy diet.
Sure, they can help some people but are they needed? Necessary? Not usually unless you have some extreme goals. Some might prefer a higher carb diet, perhaps they feel a bit better on it or want the extra insulin, but I think it is a mostly a preference. I could be wrong... I can't think of any health conditions that benefit from a higher carb diet. (On the other hand, a whole foods, unrefined higher carb diet may be beneficial.)
Hypoglycemia can benefit from more consistent and high carbs. Diverticulitis prevention is largely based on high fiber and recommended to get larger amounts of whole grains. Many people with gallbladder issues have to limit fats, as it causes GI discomfort and often diarrhea. Those are just some off hand. I do think that many people would benefit from lower carbs, especially inactive individuals. But, as you become more active, the need for additional energy is going to be beneficial.
You may be right. I don't know much at all about diverticulitis. I do have reactive hypoglycemia and it resolved on a LCHF diet. Thank goodness. I don't know if gall bladder issues need to be low fat. There are a number of active LCHF MFP members that I know of without a gall bladder and some issues, but I am sure that won't work for everyone.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Yes. Carbs can definitely have their place for some people. They may help with some things, like muscle gains.
I guess my response is the LCHF equivalent to others responding to sugar is the devil. No. Sugar is not the devil. No. A lot of carbs are not needed for a healthy diet.
Sure, they can help some people but are they needed? Necessary? Not usually unless you have some extreme goals. Some might prefer a higher carb diet, perhaps they feel a bit better on it or want the extra insulin, but I think it is a mostly a preference. I could be wrong... I can't think of any health conditions that benefit from a higher carb diet. (On the other hand, a whole foods, unrefined higher carb diet may be beneficial.)
Hypoglycemia can benefit from more consistent and high carbs. Diverticulitis prevention is largely based on high fiber and recommended to get larger amounts of whole grains. Many people with gallbladder issues have to limit fats, as it causes GI discomfort and often diarrhea. Those are just some off hand. I do think that many people would benefit from lower carbs, especially inactive individuals. But, as you become more active, the need for additional energy is going to be beneficial.
people with FH(familial hypercholesterolemia) also have to limit their fats.
I forgot about this No doubt here. High fat will never work in this situation.1 -
So much drama on this thread...
2 -
So much drama on this thread...
LOL Yes...certain topics seem to bring out the "passion" in people. I have learned...mainly just read and respond infrequently.
However there can be some things to learn if you pick your way through the drama. It has given me much to research and learn from in order to decide what is best for me. Actually in the end...both sides of the debate have given me the knowledge to formulate my own diet. It incorporates a little from both sides.
But yea...it would be nice to be able to read both sides without all the drama. Oh well...maybe in another life...
1 -
@Annie_01 The topics that cause consistent controversy are rarely solved in the thread at hand and people are perpetually in disagreement over a handful of predictable subjects that pop up over and over, IMO.
I do the same as you do and read both sides of the argument and try to sort it out for myself. If it does work, then it is awesome!
But some individuals really think "one size fits all". However it is obvious that people are at different ages, fitness ranges, metabolic level, and health in different periods of life and will respond differently.2 -
Carbs aren't essential?
NO carbs at all? so no veggies even? That seems outrageous, I shall Google about it !!
Also good day!5 -
The thing I take issue with often from those who low carb (which, by the way, I have no issue with as a way of eating if it works for you, I certainly cut way back on carbs when cutting, it's just the easiest thing to ditch for me), is this assertion that great swathes of the worlds population have some sort of metabolic issue/medical issue that makes carbs bad for them. And I'm happy to be corrected with actual statistics but I'm just not sure that stacks up.8
-
It would be nice if CICO would explain "WHY" some animals consume more than they burn. Healthy animals do not become obese in nature.
There are factors that we need to find that explains why some humans have lost the ability to eat intuitively and keep weight within a healthy range in their cases. I have finally learned in my case for long term maintenance without weighing food and counting calories for the most part is finding and eating the macro that physically removes all my food cravings without feeling 'deprived'. Hopefully most will not be old enough to sign up to start drawing Social Security (USA) as was my case.
Over time my ideal eating macro took a curve in the road it seems and I did not make the curve and crashed my health.
What is the 'right' macro will greatly vary from person to person I expect. My major clue was finding the macro that resolved my 40 years of IBS and pain along with greatly improved lab test results. Automatic weight loss is a positive side effect for finding my now 'current' eating macro.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »It would be nice if CICO would explain "WHY" some animals consume more than they burn. Healthy animals do not become obese in nature.
Um. What? Any credible references that this is a thing?6 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »It would be nice if CICO would explain "WHY" some animals consume more than they burn. Healthy animals do not become obese in nature.
Animals do not become obese in nature because food is hard to come by and takes work to get. When food is plentiful and less activity is required to gather that food, animals have no problem eating enough to become obese. I see plenty of fat birds and other wildlife in the city and fat pets. My two cats are at a healthy weight only because I purposely meal feed them and measure their food. When I first adopted them and let them eat what they wanted, they got fat quite quickly.12 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »It would be nice if CICO would explain "WHY" some animals consume more than they burn. Healthy animals do not become obese in nature.
This is supremely simple to explain. Pure common sense.
If humans still lived in grass/mud huts without modern conveniences and had to hunt/forage/grow their own foods, the levels of obesity would be orders of magnitude lower.
If you alter an animal's native environment, confine their movement and feed them ad libitum, the levels of obesity would be orders of magnitude higher.
Do you believe that animals consciously make food choices to alter their macro profiles for optimal health, Gale? Or that they make conscious decisions to gain/lose weight?10 -
VintageFeline wrote: »The thing I take issue with often from those who low carb (which, by the way, I have no issue with as a way of eating if it works for you, I certainly cut way back on carbs when cutting, it's just the easiest thing to ditch for me), is this assertion that great swathes of the worlds population have some sort of metabolic issue/medical issue that makes carbs bad for them. And I'm happy to be corrected with actual statistics but I'm just not sure that stacks up.
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2434682
"Results In the overall 2011-2012 population, the unadjusted prevalence (using the hemoglobin A1c, FPG, or 2-hour PG definitions for diabetes and prediabetes) was 14.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-16.8%) for total diabetes, 9.1% (95% CI, 7.8%-10.6%) for diagnosed diabetes, 5.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-6.9%) for undiagnosed diabetes, and 38.0% (95% CI, 34.7%-41.3%) for prediabetes; among those with diabetes, 36.4% (95% CI, 30.5%-42.7%) were undiagnosed."
That's just for insulin resistance expressed as prediabetes and T2D. It works out to 52.3% if I added that right. It could be high, but even if it is 5 or 10% high, it is still a pretty large group of people. That number does not include IR cases expressed as PCOS, NAFLD, Alzheimer's or CAD from metabolic disease. Those who could benefit from a LCHF diet is a sizeable amount.
That's not to say it is the only way. Plenty of diabetics are able to normalize blood glucose by losing enough weight. That only works if your IR is weight related though; not always the case. For example, India has quite a high IR problem which is not weight related. It appears to be realted to NAFLD.
I imagine the cases of cancer that directly benefit from a low carb diet is fairly small.1
This discussion has been closed.
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