Is it healthy to completely cut out carbs from my diet?
Replies
-
3rdof7sisters wrote: »So, for the average person, you are saying they do not need
Fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes
Just lean protein, healthy fats are all you need.
I am serious about this, where do the fruits, vegetables come into a healthy diet?
Sorry that I am so ignorant. Correct me if I am wrong, but the UK is advocating for 10 servings of fruit and vegetables daily.
Yeah I think very few people (I have seen one or two around the internet) would contend that fruits and vegetables aren't healthy. I think many people can have issues with high-sugar fruits (mangoes, dates, etc) if they are already eating a carb-heavy diet, especially at the expense of fat and protein. Personally, things like dates make me want to just keep eating dates, and candy, and really just keep eating. BUT this isn't proven, and anecdotally isn't the case for everyone.
Fruits and veg contain a ton of nutrients, both essential and non-essential, that contribute to good health. (Important point there, just because something is non-essential doesn't mean it can't be a beneficial addition to your diet). I eat a ketogenic diet (meaning less than 40-50 g net carbs/day, high fat) and would be hard-pressed to find a day when I'm not eating 8-10 portions of veg or fruit (mostly veg, but I do eat berries and some other fruit occasionally).0 -
FarewellBlues wrote: »Yet many people have enormous success in losing weight (and maintaining) simply by counting calories and eating less than they expend. How do we explain that wizardry in the absence of the use of highly complex, nonlinear equations? Anecdotally, I've lost 60 pounds and never once had to break out my scientific calculator to solve for my biological processes - I chose calorie/macro goals based upon my goals and calculated daily needs, and adjusted as necessary based upon the results I was getting.
Kudos! 60 pounds is a great accomplishment. Glad you're in the portion of the population that this works well for. That bit where you adjusted as necessary based on results is great and really the only accurate (cheap, available) method of figuring out your expenditure. However, you had 60 pounds to lose! For those of us with 10-15 lbs to lose, it's really difficult to hone in on what that expenditure is, how much of a deficit to have, results are often masked by fluctuations in water and these can be significant particularly for women.
There plenty of studies where weight loss does not align well with that predicted from CICO. Of course, this is not a failure of the energy balance equation, but rather a failure of our estimations for calorie intake, expenditure, or both. Reduction of carbohydrates, for some of the population at least, seems to work well. Is this fundamentally because calorie expenditure is greater than calorie intake? OF COURSE.
Low-carb also has proven benefits which have nothing to do with weight loss, which is why I adopted it as a long term way of eating. I like eating fewer carbs, it makes me feel better. Isn't that what those in the "moderation" crowd tell people of MFP - eat what you want within your calorie limit, fuel your body appropriately and don't neglect health? If you do well and feel good with higher or whatever carbs, I wouldn't suggest you change that.
You understand that the energy balance equation still needs to be figured out regardless of your way of eating? So what has that got to do with you liking to low carb? Your argument isn't an argument here.
And if you use a weight trending app, track accurately you can pretty quickly work out CICO even as a woman. Of course some may not consider 6-8 weeks quick but in the grand scheme of things it's a small investment. You just need some averages and you can work the rest out based on losses/gains/staying the same. That applies whether you have 10 or 100 pounds to lose.7 -
OP, your thread title hit the magic button and started the current argument du jour
. Carbs and their usefulness, necessity, correlation to the devil is kind of the hot topic right now.
As others have said, fruits and veggies are carbs. Carbs do not make you gain weight, excess calories do. There are plenty of people who have successfully lost weight by cutting out grains and eating protein, fats, and veggies so if you want to try it, go for it. There are also plenty of people who have successfully lost weight while eating a lot of carbs, so it's not necessary to cut them out. You have to find the way of eating that you can be happy and satiated with at the right amount of calories. It's different for everyone.
As a point of reference, I lost 15 vanity lbs eating @ 50% carbs, including potatoes, pasta, bread, pretzels, pizza, cereal etc. all the time. I did it by using a food scale and making sure I was hitting my calorie goal (I watched my protein as well). I wasn't hungry or bloated. My blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar, etc have always and continue to be in the optimal range. Not saying that because it worked for me it will work for everyone, just that carbs aren't universally the source of excess weight, poor health, and demon possession universally. Good luck! 7 -
FarewellBlues wrote: »Yet many people have enormous success in losing weight (and maintaining) simply by counting calories and eating less than they expend. How do we explain that wizardry in the absence of the use of highly complex, nonlinear equations? Anecdotally, I've lost 60 pounds and never once had to break out my scientific calculator to solve for my biological processes - I chose calorie/macro goals based upon my goals and calculated daily needs, and adjusted as necessary based upon the results I was getting.
Kudos! 60 pounds is a great accomplishment. Glad you're in the portion of the population that this works well for. That bit where you adjusted as necessary based on results is great and really the only accurate (cheap, available) method of figuring out your expenditure. However, you had 60 pounds to lose! For those of us with 10-15 lbs to lose, it's really difficult to hone in on what that expenditure is, how much of a deficit to have, results are often masked by fluctuations in water and these can be significant particularly for women.
There plenty of studies where weight loss does not align well with that predicted from CICO. Of course, this is not a failure of the energy balance equation, but rather a failure of our estimations for calorie intake, expenditure, or both. Reduction of carbohydrates, for some of the population at least, seems to work well. Is this fundamentally because calorie expenditure is greater than calorie intake? OF COURSE.
Low-carb also has proven benefits which have nothing to do with weight loss, which is why I adopted it as a long term way of eating. I like eating fewer carbs, it makes me feel better. Isn't that what those in the "moderation" crowd tell people of MFP - eat what you want within your calorie limit, fuel your body appropriately and don't neglect health? If you do well and feel good with higher or whatever carbs, I wouldn't suggest you change that.
Well, that's just not been my experience. I'm a woman, and though I've already lost 95 pounds, I'm down to the last few vanity pounds after stretches of maintenance eating.
When I eat at a regular deficit and log accurately, I lose as expected. Granted that the bulk of my activity is pretty easy to get decent estimates for energy expenditure for since it's step based, and I have used a Fitbit for quite a while. It's had time to get to know me and provides a very good estimation of my TDEE.
I don't need to eat a special way to lose weight, so I'm not sure what point you're making about people with less weight to lose, CICO being estimates, and low carb other than it being your preference. Which is all cool because I'm all for people dieting in a way that suits their dietary preferences.
I'm just having trouble understanding what point you're trying to make here.3 -
Need2BFitAgain wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »You understand veg and fruit are carbs? So in that context it's fine. BUT carbs don't make you gain weight, excess calories do, same for sugar.
I reduce starchy carbs when losing just because they're the easiest thing to reduce and still feel satisfied but they're still part of nearly every meal, just in smaller quantities.
This is debatable... if you subscribe to the Ketogenic Way of Eating... Carbs cause insulin spikes which cause your body to store unused energy as fat.. just sayin.
If you have unused energy, you are eating at a surplus which would cause fat gain. Has nothing to do with the carbs. It's really not debatable.9 -
Need2BFitAgain wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »You understand veg and fruit are carbs? So in that context it's fine. BUT carbs don't make you gain weight, excess calories do, same for sugar.
I reduce starchy carbs when losing just because they're the easiest thing to reduce and still feel satisfied but they're still part of nearly every meal, just in smaller quantities.
This is debatable... if you subscribe to the Ketogenic Way of Eating... Carbs cause insulin spikes which cause your body to store unused energy as fat.. just sayin.
Are you saying that eating carbs causes a person to store fat, even in a calorie deficit?6 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I love my fruit and veggies, the more the better for me (admittedly i struggle with getting enough veggies, and too much fruit, I need to find a balance there), i just feel better overall when i get plenty of veggies in me. And to be totally honest i think organ meats would make a "reappearance" before i could even swallow it :sick: I just couldn't do it, no matter how healthy it is claimed to be...
My husband is the same. He spent months at a time living in the bush, and he ate some vile things, but he too draws the line at liver et al.
Christine, do you eat a lot of fruit year round, or is it more seasonal? I tend to go crazy on it during the summer, but eat much less during the winter. I really think it's normal to take advantage of seasonal windfalls and wouldn't stress about it.
I'm with you on organ meat. Or "barely cooked" meat. Then again, I don't eat any meat!
3 -
3rdof7sisters wrote: »So, for the average person, you are saying they do not need
Fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes
Just lean protein, healthy fats are all you need.
I am serious about this, where do the fruits, vegetables come into a healthy diet?
Sorry that I am so ignorant. Correct me if I am wrong, but the UK is advocating for 10 servings of fruit and vegetables daily.
You do not need them because your body will make them.
That doesn't mean that not eating them is optimal.
Eat up, follow what the UK is advocating.3 -
Fruits and vegetables are fruits and vegetables. Carbs are macro-nutrients, and they are one part of fruits and vegetables.VintageFeline wrote: »You understand veg and fruit are carbs?
OP, there is no problem with trying something new for a few weeks to see how it works for you.
0 -
Fruits and vegetables are fruits and vegetables. Carbs are macro-nutrients, and they are one part of fruits and vegetables.VintageFeline wrote: »You understand veg and fruit are carbs?
OP, there is no problem with trying something new for a few weeks to see how it works for you.
Given the OP said cutting out carbs and we are talking about macros in that context then it's not incorrect to say fruit and veg are Carbs. Their micronutrient profiles differ but so do starchy carbs.3 -
Need2BFitAgain wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »You understand veg and fruit are carbs? So in that context it's fine. BUT carbs don't make you gain weight, excess calories do, same for sugar.
I reduce starchy carbs when losing just because they're the easiest thing to reduce and still feel satisfied but they're still part of nearly every meal, just in smaller quantities.
This is debatable... if you subscribe to the Ketogenic Way of Eating... Carbs cause insulin spikes which cause your body to store unused energy as fat.. just sayin.
Insulin spikes aren't inherently bad. The body can't store fat in magical isolation, it needs an excess of energy, that energy can come from any macronutrient.4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »You understand that the energy balance equation still needs to be figured out regardless of your way of eating? So what has that got to do with you liking to low carb? Your argument isn't an argument here.
And if you use a weight trending app, track accurately you can pretty quickly work out CICO even as a woman. Of course some may not consider 6-8 weeks quick but in the grand scheme of things it's a small investment. You just need some averages and you can work the rest out based on losses/gains/staying the same. That applies whether you have 10 or 100 pounds to lose.
You don't actually need to "figure out" the energy balance equation in the sense of tracking calories and expenditure, most of the time, really I'd argue for most ways of eating but especially not low-carb. That's one of the advantages of low-carb; that the appetite usually self-regulates to activity levels and you don't have to think about it much. Of course it may be advantageous for some people to track, particularly if they're gaining or not losing for a significant amount of time and can't figure out why.
I've tracked my weight almost daily for upwards of 5 years, and have large periods where I was tracking my intake/exercise. In fact it's not as simple as fitting a linear to the data, because long-time fluctuations occur that depend on how I'm eating, how I'm training (I'm a semi-competitive athlete), and how I'm sleeping - those things significantly affect hormones which affect more than just short-term water retention, but long-term energy expenditure. I have a lot of data and I know what affects me most.
My point about liking low-carb is that, if someone is asking if low-carb can be healthy, or even just wants to try this way of eating, people on here tend to jump on them and yell "CICO! I lost weight and eat tons of pasta!" which is great for them, but why not promote figuring out what method works best for individual goals, lifestyle, and health? Too many replies are reductionist in the extreme: "CICO period. The end. Stop thinking about anything else." whereas helping the person figure out what might help them maintain CI < CO should be the focus.
Lastly, I track things because I like to; I'm a scientist and my job involves a lot of data analysis. But for those that want to lose weight without weighing their food and counting calories the rest of their lives, they might find that reducing carbohydrates is an effective strategy.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I love my fruit and veggies, the more the better for me (admittedly i struggle with getting enough veggies, and too much fruit, I need to find a balance there), i just feel better overall when i get plenty of veggies in me. And to be totally honest i think organ meats would make a "reappearance" before i could even swallow it :sick: I just couldn't do it, no matter how healthy it is claimed to be...
My husband is the same. He spent months at a time living in the bush, and he ate some vile things, but he too draws the line at liver et al.
Christine, do you eat a lot of fruit year round, or is it more seasonal? I tend to go crazy on it during the summer, but eat much less during the winter. I really think it's normal to take advantage of seasonal windfalls and wouldn't stress about it.
I'm with you on organ meat. Or "barely cooked" meat. Then again, I don't eat any meat!
Yes you're right, i eat much more fruit during summer which does crowd out veggies. You always manage to put things in perspective for me
Last winter i was eating eating roasted broccoli and cauliflower for my afternoon snack instead of my current fruit bowl.1 -
FarewellBlues wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »You understand that the energy balance equation still needs to be figured out regardless of your way of eating? So what has that got to do with you liking to low carb? Your argument isn't an argument here.
And if you use a weight trending app, track accurately you can pretty quickly work out CICO even as a woman. Of course some may not consider 6-8 weeks quick but in the grand scheme of things it's a small investment. You just need some averages and you can work the rest out based on losses/gains/staying the same. That applies whether you have 10 or 100 pounds to lose.
You don't actually need to "figure out" the energy balance equation in the sense of tracking calories and expenditure, most of the time, really I'd argue for most ways of eating but especially not low-carb. That's one of the advantages of low-carb; that the appetite usually self-regulates to activity levels and you don't have to think about it much. Of course it may be advantageous for some people to track, particularly if they're gaining or not losing for a significant amount of time and can't figure out why.
I've tracked my weight almost daily for upwards of 5 years, and have large periods where I was tracking my intake/exercise. In fact it's not as simple as fitting a linear to the data, because long-time fluctuations occur that depend on how I'm eating, how I'm training (I'm a semi-competitive athlete), and how I'm sleeping - those things significantly affect hormones which affect more than just short-term water retention, but long-term energy expenditure. I have a lot of data and I know what affects me most.
My point about liking low-carb is that, if someone is asking if low-carb can be healthy, or even just wants to try this way of eating, people on here tend to jump on them and yell "CICO! I lost weight and eat tons of pasta!" which is great for them, but why not promote figuring out what method works best for individual goals, lifestyle, and health? Too many replies are reductionist in the extreme: "CICO period. The end. Stop thinking about anything else." whereas helping the person figure out what might help them maintain CI < CO should be the focus.
Lastly, I track things because I like to; I'm a scientist and my job involves a lot of data analysis. But for those that want to lose weight without weighing their food and counting calories the rest of their lives, they might find that reducing carbohydrates is an effective strategy.
Why would this work?
It would work because it presumes satiety would be regulate appetite and caloric intake and weight would stabilize at a desired range.
That was not my experience during ten years of low carbing without tracking anything but carbohydrate intake.
If your a scientist, look up some information on the research that's been done on satiety.
It boils down to it varying by individual. Low carb didn't regulate my appetite because fat isn't sating for me. Carbohydrates, protein, and fiber are. I am not alone in this, and some preliminary research suggests that these types of differences in which diet satisfies best might likely be genetic.
5 -
FarewellBlues wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »You understand that the energy balance equation still needs to be figured out regardless of your way of eating? So what has that got to do with you liking to low carb? Your argument isn't an argument here.
And if you use a weight trending app, track accurately you can pretty quickly work out CICO even as a woman. Of course some may not consider 6-8 weeks quick but in the grand scheme of things it's a small investment. You just need some averages and you can work the rest out based on losses/gains/staying the same. That applies whether you have 10 or 100 pounds to lose.
You don't actually need to "figure out" the energy balance equation in the sense of tracking calories and expenditure, most of the time, really I'd argue for most ways of eating but especially not low-carb. That's one of the advantages of low-carb; that the appetite usually self-regulates to activity levels and you don't have to think about it much. Of course it may be advantageous for some people to track, particularly if they're gaining or not losing for a significant amount of time and can't figure out why.
I've tracked my weight almost daily for upwards of 5 years, and have large periods where I was tracking my intake/exercise. In fact it's not as simple as fitting a linear to the data, because long-time fluctuations occur that depend on how I'm eating, how I'm training (I'm a semi-competitive athlete), and how I'm sleeping - those things significantly affect hormones which affect more than just short-term water retention, but long-term energy expenditure. I have a lot of data and I know what affects me most.
My point about liking low-carb is that, if someone is asking if low-carb can be healthy, or even just wants to try this way of eating, people on here tend to jump on them and yell "CICO! I lost weight and eat tons of pasta!" which is great for them, but why not promote figuring out what method works best for individual goals, lifestyle, and health? Too many replies are reductionist in the extreme: "CICO period. The end. Stop thinking about anything else." whereas helping the person figure out what might help them maintain CI < CO should be the focus.
Lastly, I track things because I like to; I'm a scientist and my job involves a lot of data analysis. But for those that want to lose weight without weighing their food and counting calories the rest of their lives, they might find that reducing carbohydrates is an effective strategy.
Reducing carbs might be effective for some but not all. I personally find a bowl of oatmeal much more filling than a piece of steak. The same could really be said for all complex carbs for me. Refined carbs is a different story though. They are my recipe for weight gain. The trick is to really listen to your body and find out what works best for you.0 -
Need2BFitAgain wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »You understand veg and fruit are carbs? So in that context it's fine. BUT carbs don't make you gain weight, excess calories do, same for sugar.
I reduce starchy carbs when losing just because they're the easiest thing to reduce and still feel satisfied but they're still part of nearly every meal, just in smaller quantities.
This is debatable... if you subscribe to the Ketogenic Way of Eating... Carbs cause insulin spikes which cause your body to store unused energy as fat.. just sayin.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-finds-cutting-dietary-fat-reduces-body-fat-more-cutting-carbs0 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »So Ebony you don't agree that having vegetables everyday is essential? Strange when that should be close to 50% of our diet. That astounds me, unless you are not knowledgeable enough to realise that vegetables have carbs.
Actually, no, having vegetables every day is not essential. Or even required. You can be extremely healthy on fat and protein alone. Do some research.
0 -
EbonyDahlia wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »So Ebony you don't agree that having vegetables everyday is essential? Strange when that should be close to 50% of our diet. That astounds me, unless you are not knowledgeable enough to realise that vegetables have carbs.
Actually, no, having vegetables every day is not essential. Or even required. You can be extremely healthy on fat and protein alone. Do some research.
Now that you have cut out vegetables you now have to cut out all dairy and all nuts because they too contain carbs. You have cut out pretty much all foods except meat to have a zero carb diet. Please show me scientific research stating that this is healthy or even comes close to having optimal health.2 -
I eat a lot of carbs. Like white bread, potatoes, white rice, pasta.
Would it be a problem to completely cut out carbs from my diet for 1-2 weeks?
With the exception of having ready break in the morning for breakfast. And just have a diet of fruit, veg and protein?
I've read here that starchy food can contribute to weight gain and I want to cut it out together with high sugar foods (like cakes and biscuits) for a couple of weeks.
Would this be a good idea?
Has anyone tried cutting down on carbs?
Fruits and veggies have carbs.
No food contributes to weight gain, just an overabundance does that.
I love my carbs.....
3 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »So Ebony you don't agree that having vegetables everyday is essential? Strange when that should be close to 50% of our diet. That astounds me, unless you are not knowledgeable enough to realise that vegetables have carbs.
Actually, no, having vegetables every day is not essential. Or even required. You can be extremely healthy on fat and protein alone. Do some research.
Now that you have cut out vegetables you now have to cut out all dairy and all nuts because they too contain carbs. You have cut out pretty much all foods except meat to have a zero carb diet. Please show me scientific research stating that this is healthy or even comes close to having optimal health.
I was going to ask about that - don't cheese and tzatziki and whipped cream (having read that up-thread) have carbs? minimal, but carbs nonetheless?3 -
Need2BFitAgain wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »You understand veg and fruit are carbs? So in that context it's fine. BUT carbs don't make you gain weight, excess calories do, same for sugar.
I reduce starchy carbs when losing just because they're the easiest thing to reduce and still feel satisfied but they're still part of nearly every meal, just in smaller quantities.
This is debatable... if you subscribe to the Ketogenic Way of Eating... Carbs cause insulin spikes which cause your body to store unused energy as fat.. just sayin.
That's not debatable at all - at least by anybody who has a basic knowledge of physiology. There is no net storage of fat in a caloric deficit regardless of macronutrient composition. In a caloric surplus, there will be net storage of fat regardless of macronutrient composition.
A ketogenic diet is not magic, and does not defy the laws of energy balance.
If you'd like to gain a better understanding of insulin and it's role in the body and weight management, here's an excellent primer on it, complete with discussion of, and links to, actual scientific studies: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/8 -
Here's one where they overfed trained individuals with no significant body fat gain.
Though I remember Jose saying it was extremely difficult getting the participants to choke down so much protein.
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1550-2783-11-190 -
An interesting article from Adel Moussa on the ketogenic diet in athletes vs average Joe's.
http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2017/02/low-carb-diets-and-physical-performance.html?m=10 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »So Ebony you don't agree that having vegetables everyday is essential? Strange when that should be close to 50% of our diet. That astounds me, unless you are not knowledgeable enough to realise that vegetables have carbs.
Actually, no, having vegetables every day is not essential. Or even required. You can be extremely healthy on fat and protein alone. Do some research.
Now that you have cut out vegetables you now have to cut out all dairy and all nuts because they too contain carbs. You have cut out pretty much all foods except meat to have a zero carb diet. Please show me scientific research stating that this is healthy or even comes close to having optimal health.
I was going to ask about that - don't cheese and tzatziki and whipped cream (having read that up-thread) have carbs? minimal, but carbs nonetheless?
About 50/50 with carbs verses protein for some dairy. The 50 grams of Greek yoghurt I had with breakfast this morning was 3 gms of carbs and 2.9 grams protein. My half a cup of milk had 6.2 grams of carbs and 4.1 grams of protein. Cream is about the same ratio. On the flip side cheese only has protein and butter has no protein or carbs.
So you can now have a diet consisting of meat, cheese and butter.
You can survive on a diet free of fruit and vegetables and all other food sources except what comes from animals but you could not be close to optimum health and there is no way you would be reaching your daily nutritional requirements. I know you can get some vitamin C from raw meat but there is no way you would get enough to meet your daily requirements.
I can understand a low carb diet and its benefits but a diet that removes the majority of food groups so you can be nearly carb free is just plain crazy and anyone that thinks this is a way to go needs a serious talk with a dietitian.2 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »So Ebony you don't agree that having vegetables everyday is essential? Strange when that should be close to 50% of our diet. That astounds me, unless you are not knowledgeable enough to realise that vegetables have carbs.
Actually, no, having vegetables every day is not essential. Or even required. You can be extremely healthy on fat and protein alone. Do some research.
Now that you have cut out vegetables you now have to cut out all dairy and all nuts because they too contain carbs. You have cut out pretty much all foods except meat to have a zero carb diet. Please show me scientific research stating that this is healthy or even comes close to having optimal health.
I was going to ask about that - don't cheese and tzatziki and whipped cream (having read that up-thread) have carbs? minimal, but carbs nonetheless?
About 50/50 with carbs verses protein for some dairy. The 50 grams of Greek yoghurt I had with breakfast this morning was 3 gms of carbs and 2.9 grams protein. My half a cup of milk had 6.2 grams of carbs and 4.1 grams of protein. Cream is about the same ratio. On the flip side cheese only has protein and butter has no protein or carbs.
So you can now have a diet consisting of meat, cheese and butter.
You can survive on a diet free of fruit and vegetables and all other food sources except what comes from animals but you could not be close to optimum health and there is no way you would be reaching your daily nutritional requirements.
Meat cheese and butter you say.... I'd not poop for weeks at a time, but man, I'd be happy.4 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »So Ebony you don't agree that having vegetables everyday is essential? Strange when that should be close to 50% of our diet. That astounds me, unless you are not knowledgeable enough to realise that vegetables have carbs.
Actually, no, having vegetables every day is not essential. Or even required. You can be extremely healthy on fat and protein alone. Do some research.
Now that you have cut out vegetables you now have to cut out all dairy and all nuts because they too contain carbs. You have cut out pretty much all foods except meat to have a zero carb diet. Please show me scientific research stating that this is healthy or even comes close to having optimal health.
I was going to ask about that - don't cheese and tzatziki and whipped cream (having read that up-thread) have carbs? minimal, but carbs nonetheless?
That was me who wrote that. And yes, there are a few trace carbs in there. When I was eating all animal products I was still getting up to 5 or so grams per day.
It is almost impossible to eat zero carb. Even meats still have trace carbs.0 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »So Ebony you don't agree that having vegetables everyday is essential? Strange when that should be close to 50% of our diet. That astounds me, unless you are not knowledgeable enough to realise that vegetables have carbs.
Actually, no, having vegetables every day is not essential. Or even required. You can be extremely healthy on fat and protein alone. Do some research.
Now that you have cut out vegetables you now have to cut out all dairy and all nuts because they too contain carbs. You have cut out pretty much all foods except meat to have a zero carb diet. Please show me scientific research stating that this is healthy or even comes close to having optimal health.
I was going to ask about that - don't cheese and tzatziki and whipped cream (having read that up-thread) have carbs? minimal, but carbs nonetheless?
About 50/50 with carbs verses protein for some dairy. The 50 grams of Greek yoghurt I had with breakfast this morning was 3 gms of carbs and 2.9 grams protein. My half a cup of milk had 6.2 grams of carbs and 4.1 grams of protein. Cream is about the same ratio. On the flip side cheese only has protein and butter has no protein or carbs.
So you can now have a diet consisting of meat, cheese and butter.
You can survive on a diet free of fruit and vegetables and all other food sources except what comes from animals but you could not be close to optimum health and there is no way you would be reaching your daily nutritional requirements. I know you can get some vitamin C from raw meat but there is no way you would get enough to meet your daily requirements.
I can understand a low carb diet and its benefits but a diet that removes the majority of food groups so you can be nearly carb free is just plain crazy and anyone that thinks this is a way to go needs a serious talk with a dietitian.
These are assumptions. You really can get enough nutrients if if you eat quality animal products. People are doing it, and many people did it in the past.
Steffanson (sp?) lived with Inuit for years and when he returned the medical community did not want to believe the Inuit were healthy on a mainly carnivorous diet. To prove his point he lived in a hospital ward for months so they could supervise him, and his health, on an Inuit diet. He eventually proved his point.
He wrote The Fat of the Land about his experiences.
1 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »So Ebony you don't agree that having vegetables everyday is essential? Strange when that should be close to 50% of our diet. That astounds me, unless you are not knowledgeable enough to realise that vegetables have carbs.
Actually, no, having vegetables every day is not essential. Or even required. You can be extremely healthy on fat and protein alone. Do some research.
Now that you have cut out vegetables you now have to cut out all dairy and all nuts because they too contain carbs. You have cut out pretty much all foods except meat to have a zero carb diet. Please show me scientific research stating that this is healthy or even comes close to having optimal health.
I was going to ask about that - don't cheese and tzatziki and whipped cream (having read that up-thread) have carbs? minimal, but carbs nonetheless?
About 50/50 with carbs verses protein for some dairy. The 50 grams of Greek yoghurt I had with breakfast this morning was 3 gms of carbs and 2.9 grams protein. My half a cup of milk had 6.2 grams of carbs and 4.1 grams of protein. Cream is about the same ratio. On the flip side cheese only has protein and butter has no protein or carbs.
So you can now have a diet consisting of meat, cheese and butter.
You can survive on a diet free of fruit and vegetables and all other food sources except what comes from animals but you could not be close to optimum health and there is no way you would be reaching your daily nutritional requirements. I know you can get some vitamin C from raw meat but there is no way you would get enough to meet your daily requirements.
I can understand a low carb diet and its benefits but a diet that removes the majority of food groups so you can be nearly carb free is just plain crazy and anyone that thinks this is a way to go needs a serious talk with a dietitian.
These are assumptions. You really can get enough nutrients if if you eat quality animal products. People are doing it, and many people did it in the past.
Steffanson (sp?) lived with Inuit for years and when he returned the medical community did not want to believe the Inuit were healthy on a mainly carnivorous diet. To prove his point he lived in a hospital ward for months so they could supervise him, and his health, on an Inuit diet. He eventually proved his point.
He wrote The Fat of the Land about his experiences.
Look into it a bit deeper and you come across articles like this which show that the Inuits diet is not as low carb as believed and their rates of heart disease are actually higher than reported.
The Inuit
Well known to consume significant amounts of whale and seal meat frequently, the Inuit are commonly construed to be heart disease-free. Is this another outlier to much of the other observational research finding low processed food, low animal, high plant diets to be associated with low heart disease death rates?
Some small studies do show that the Inuit eat a relatively lower carbohydrate diet. One study in Greenland in 1976[4] found they consumed about 37% of calories from carbohydrate. Other surveys of native populations found them to consume anywhere from 8 to 53% carbohydrate, the 53% number being noted in populations in the late 1930s. 53%, by the way, is more than was found to be consumed in Denmark in 1972(cited in 4). Certainly significant amounts of bread and sugar were consumed as long ago as 40-50 years ago, at least as documented by trading post activity[4].
What about their risk of heart disease? It turns out to be a myth so often repeated it just became an unsupported truth. A 2003 paper[5] published by a highly experienced, highly published scientist at the National Institute of Public Health in Greenland, written with his colleagues from Canada, documents many autopsy studies and clinical observations and studies proving that heart disease existed among the Inuit. In fact, in 1940 the “father of epidemiology” in Greenland, Bertelsen, noted heart disease to be quite common, perhaps even more interesting given the young age of the population. He based this on clinical experience and medical officer reports going back for many decades(cited in 5). All told, the 2003 paper found “the hypothesis that mortality from ischemic heart disease is low among the Inuit compared with western populations insufficiently founded.” Further, “…a general statement that mortality from cardiovascular disease is high among the Inuit seems more warranted than the opposite.”[5]
In addition, it has been found that bone health among the Inuit was quite bad. A 1974 study[6] found, “Aging bone loss, which occurs in many populations, has an earlier onset and greater intensity in the Eskimos. Nutrition factors of high protein, high nitrogen, high phosphorus, and low calcium intakes may be implicated.”
http://nutritionstudies.org/masai-and-inuit-high-protein-diets-a-closer-look/0 -
No. Complex carbs are so good for you. They provide your body and brain with needed energy and they can give your body good nutrients.0
-
Lillymoo01 wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »So Ebony you don't agree that having vegetables everyday is essential? Strange when that should be close to 50% of our diet. That astounds me, unless you are not knowledgeable enough to realise that vegetables have carbs.
Actually, no, having vegetables every day is not essential. Or even required. You can be extremely healthy on fat and protein alone. Do some research.
Now that you have cut out vegetables you now have to cut out all dairy and all nuts because they too contain carbs. You have cut out pretty much all foods except meat to have a zero carb diet. Please show me scientific research stating that this is healthy or even comes close to having optimal health.
I was going to ask about that - don't cheese and tzatziki and whipped cream (having read that up-thread) have carbs? minimal, but carbs nonetheless?
About 50/50 with carbs verses protein for some dairy. The 50 grams of Greek yoghurt I had with breakfast this morning was 3 gms of carbs and 2.9 grams protein. My half a cup of milk had 6.2 grams of carbs and 4.1 grams of protein. Cream is about the same ratio. On the flip side cheese only has protein and butter has no protein or carbs.
So you can now have a diet consisting of meat, cheese and butter.
You can survive on a diet free of fruit and vegetables and all other food sources except what comes from animals but you could not be close to optimum health and there is no way you would be reaching your daily nutritional requirements. I know you can get some vitamin C from raw meat but there is no way you would get enough to meet your daily requirements.
I can understand a low carb diet and its benefits but a diet that removes the majority of food groups so you can be nearly carb free is just plain crazy and anyone that thinks this is a way to go needs a serious talk with a dietitian.
These are assumptions. You really can get enough nutrients if if you eat quality animal products. People are doing it, and many people did it in the past.
Steffanson (sp?) lived with Inuit for years and when he returned the medical community did not want to believe the Inuit were healthy on a mainly carnivorous diet. To prove his point he lived in a hospital ward for months so they could supervise him, and his health, on an Inuit diet. He eventually proved his point.
He wrote The Fat of the Land about his experiences.
Look into it a bit deeper and you come across articles like this which show that the Inuits diet is not as low carb as believed and their rates of heart disease are actually higher than reported.
The Inuit
Well known to consume significant amounts of whale and seal meat frequently, the Inuit are commonly construed to be heart disease-free. Is this another outlier to much of the other observational research finding low processed food, low animal, high plant diets to be associated with low heart disease death rates?
Some small studies do show that the Inuit eat a relatively lower carbohydrate diet. One study in Greenland in 1976[4] found they consumed about 37% of calories from carbohydrate. Other surveys of native populations found them to consume anywhere from 8 to 53% carbohydrate, the 53% number being noted in populations in the late 1930s. 53%, by the way, is more than was found to be consumed in Denmark in 1972(cited in 4). Certainly significant amounts of bread and sugar were consumed as long ago as 40-50 years ago, at least as documented by trading post activity[4].
What about their risk of heart disease? It turns out to be a myth so often repeated it just became an unsupported truth. A 2003 paper[5] published by a highly experienced, highly published scientist at the National Institute of Public Health in Greenland, written with his colleagues from Canada, documents many autopsy studies and clinical observations and studies proving that heart disease existed among the Inuit. In fact, in 1940 the “father of epidemiology” in Greenland, Bertelsen, noted heart disease to be quite common, perhaps even more interesting given the young age of the population. He based this on clinical experience and medical officer reports going back for many decades(cited in 5). All told, the 2003 paper found “the hypothesis that mortality from ischemic heart disease is low among the Inuit compared with western populations insufficiently founded.” Further, “…a general statement that mortality from cardiovascular disease is high among the Inuit seems more warranted than the opposite.”[5]
In addition, it has been found that bone health among the Inuit was quite bad. A 1974 study[6] found, “Aging bone loss, which occurs in many populations, has an earlier onset and greater intensity in the Eskimos. Nutrition factors of high protein, high nitrogen, high phosphorus, and low calcium intakes may be implicated.”
http://nutritionstudies.org/masai-and-inuit-high-protein-diets-a-closer-look/
Well, Campbell might be a bit biased, isn't it?
This makes more sense:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975865/0
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