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.
which is the best diet for overall health and weight loss
Replies
-
This was an interesting discussion on inflammatory foods:
http://www.cavemandoctor.com/2012/03/27/inflammation-which-foods-take-the-blame/
Disclaimer: I did not look at the his sources.1 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »LCHF! Any diet which reduces inflammatory foods and increases intake of foods high in anti oxidants!
Bacon, cheese, coconut oil, bulletproof coffee and "fat bombs" are anti-inflammatory and high in antioxidants?
Foods high in saturated fats are definitely less inflammatory than foods high in polyunsaturated fats!
Are you suggesting that the foods you listed are the ‘only’ foods you can eat on a LCHF diet?
Are you suggesting that the foods eaten by people not on ketogenic diets are all inflammatory and low in antioxidants?tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »LCHF! Any diet which reduces inflammatory foods and increases intake of foods high in anti oxidants!
Bacon, cheese, coconut oil, bulletproof coffee and "fat bombs" are anti-inflammatory and high in antioxidants?
Foods high in saturated fats are definitely less inflammatory than foods high in polyunsaturated fats!
Are you suggesting that the foods you listed are the ‘only’ foods you can eat on a LCHF diet?
Are you suggesting that the foods eaten by people not on ketogenic diets are all inflammatory and low in antioxidants?
I’m suggesting a person on a LCHF (not necessarily keto) will likely be eating less inflammatory and oxidising foods (less grains and refined sugars)! Are you suggesting otherwise?
Are you familiar with Blue Zones? Lots of fruits, veggies, legumes, whole grains, incredibly high incidence of healthy and active centenarians?
Fruit and veggies, saturated fats, nuts and seeds are all great inclusions in a LCHF diet - especially the veggies, nuts seeds.
I should think a diet like the blue zone is very high in antioxidants and low in most types of inflammatory foods.
You said grains are inflammatory, Blue Zones diets incorporate lots of grains. Also lots of fruit and wine, ie sugar. And very low in saturated fat - very little or no meat and dairy.
Are you distinguishing between whole grains or refined grains?
If the diet is very little meat, then it’s definitely not for me.
The wine sounds good!
10 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »LCHF! Any diet which reduces inflammatory foods and increases intake of foods high in anti oxidants!
Bacon, cheese, coconut oil, bulletproof coffee and "fat bombs" are anti-inflammatory and high in antioxidants?
Foods high in saturated fats are definitely less inflammatory than foods high in polyunsaturated fats!
Are you suggesting that the foods you listed are the ‘only’ foods you can eat on a LCHF diet?
Are you suggesting that the foods eaten by people not on ketogenic diets are all inflammatory and low in antioxidants?tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »LCHF! Any diet which reduces inflammatory foods and increases intake of foods high in anti oxidants!
Bacon, cheese, coconut oil, bulletproof coffee and "fat bombs" are anti-inflammatory and high in antioxidants?
Foods high in saturated fats are definitely less inflammatory than foods high in polyunsaturated fats!
Are you suggesting that the foods you listed are the ‘only’ foods you can eat on a LCHF diet?
Are you suggesting that the foods eaten by people not on ketogenic diets are all inflammatory and low in antioxidants?
I’m suggesting a person on a LCHF (not necessarily keto) will likely be eating less inflammatory and oxidising foods (less grains and refined sugars)! Are you suggesting otherwise?
Are you familiar with Blue Zones? Lots of fruits, veggies, legumes, whole grains, incredibly high incidence of healthy and active centenarians?
Fruit and veggies, saturated fats, nuts and seeds are all great inclusions in a LCHF diet - especially the veggies, nuts seeds.
I should think a diet like the blue zone is very high in antioxidants and low in most types of inflammatory foods.
You said grains are inflammatory, Blue Zones diets incorporate lots of grains. Also lots of fruit and wine, ie sugar. And very low in saturated fat - very little or no meat and dairy.
Are you distinguishing between whole grains or refined grains?
If the diet is very little meat, then it’s definitely not for me.
The wine sounds good!
The point is, you didn't distinguish, you just said "grains".
It is certainly possible to eat a moderate or even high carb diet while avoiding refined grains and sugar. The Blue Zones have been doing it for generations.
I'm not saying the way the Blue Zones eat is necessary for good health, simply that I can't agree that a diet that is so different from the way they eat is somehow optimal.8 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »LCHF! Any diet which reduces inflammatory foods and increases intake of foods high in anti oxidants!
Bacon, cheese, coconut oil, bulletproof coffee and "fat bombs" are anti-inflammatory and high in antioxidants?
Foods high in saturated fats are definitely less inflammatory than foods high in polyunsaturated fats!
Are you suggesting that the foods you listed are the ‘only’ foods you can eat on a LCHF diet?
Are you suggesting that the foods eaten by people not on ketogenic diets are all inflammatory and low in antioxidants?tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »LCHF! Any diet which reduces inflammatory foods and increases intake of foods high in anti oxidants!
Bacon, cheese, coconut oil, bulletproof coffee and "fat bombs" are anti-inflammatory and high in antioxidants?
Foods high in saturated fats are definitely less inflammatory than foods high in polyunsaturated fats!
Are you suggesting that the foods you listed are the ‘only’ foods you can eat on a LCHF diet?
Are you suggesting that the foods eaten by people not on ketogenic diets are all inflammatory and low in antioxidants?
I’m suggesting a person on a LCHF (not necessarily keto) will likely be eating less inflammatory and oxidising foods (less grains and refined sugars)! Are you suggesting otherwise?
Are you familiar with Blue Zones? Lots of fruits, veggies, legumes, whole grains, incredibly high incidence of healthy and active centenarians?
Fruit and veggies, saturated fats, nuts and seeds are all great inclusions in a LCHF diet - especially the veggies, nuts seeds.
I should think a diet like the blue zone is very high in antioxidants and low in most types of inflammatory foods.
You said grains are inflammatory, Blue Zones diets incorporate lots of grains. Also lots of fruit and wine, ie sugar. And very low in saturated fat - very little or no meat and dairy.
Are you distinguishing between whole grains or refined grains?
If the diet is very little meat, then it’s definitely not for me.
The wine sounds good!
The point is, you didn't distinguish, you just said "grains".
It is certainly possible to eat a moderate or even high carb diet while avoiding refined grains and sugar. The Blue Zones have been doing it for generations.
I'm not saying the way the Blue Zones eat is necessary for good health, simply that I can't agree that a diet that is so different from the way they eat is somehow optimal.
First off please don’t misrepresent what I have said. I didn’t say avoid, I said reduce!
Secondly both whole grains and refined grains are inflammatory, but then there are plenty of foods that are.
You do not need to avoid these foods in a healthy diet. But reducing an intake of these foods will certainly be healthy.
If you have any studies that prove LCHF Is not an optimal or healthy diet, feel free to post them!15 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »LCHF! Any diet which reduces inflammatory foods and increases intake of foods high in anti oxidants!
Bacon, cheese, coconut oil, bulletproof coffee and "fat bombs" are anti-inflammatory and high in antioxidants?
Foods high in saturated fats are definitely less inflammatory than foods high in polyunsaturated fats!
Are you suggesting that the foods you listed are the ‘only’ foods you can eat on a LCHF diet?
Are you suggesting that the foods eaten by people not on ketogenic diets are all inflammatory and low in antioxidants?tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »LCHF! Any diet which reduces inflammatory foods and increases intake of foods high in anti oxidants!
Bacon, cheese, coconut oil, bulletproof coffee and "fat bombs" are anti-inflammatory and high in antioxidants?
Foods high in saturated fats are definitely less inflammatory than foods high in polyunsaturated fats!
Are you suggesting that the foods you listed are the ‘only’ foods you can eat on a LCHF diet?
Are you suggesting that the foods eaten by people not on ketogenic diets are all inflammatory and low in antioxidants?
I’m suggesting a person on a LCHF (not necessarily keto) will likely be eating less inflammatory and oxidising foods (less grains and refined sugars)! Are you suggesting otherwise?
Are you familiar with Blue Zones? Lots of fruits, veggies, legumes, whole grains, incredibly high incidence of healthy and active centenarians?
Fruit and veggies, saturated fats, nuts and seeds are all great inclusions in a LCHF diet - especially the veggies, nuts seeds.
I should think a diet like the blue zone is very high in antioxidants and low in most types of inflammatory foods.
You said grains are inflammatory, Blue Zones diets incorporate lots of grains. Also lots of fruit and wine, ie sugar. And very low in saturated fat - very little or no meat and dairy.
Are you distinguishing between whole grains or refined grains?
If the diet is very little meat, then it’s definitely not for me.
The wine sounds good!
The point is, you didn't distinguish, you just said "grains".
It is certainly possible to eat a moderate or even high carb diet while avoiding refined grains and sugar. The Blue Zones have been doing it for generations.
I'm not saying the way the Blue Zones eat is necessary for good health, simply that I can't agree that a diet that is so different from the way they eat is somehow optimal.
First off please don’t misrepresent what I have said. I didn’t say avoid, I said reduce!
Secondly both whole grains and refined grains are inflammatory, but then there are plenty of foods that are.
You do not need to avoid these foods in a healthy diet. But reducing an intake of these foods will certainly be healthy.
If you have any studies that prove LCHF Is not an optimal or healthy diet, feel free to post them!
You can't prove a negative, that is kind of "Scientific Process 101".
I think of avoiding and reducing as pretty much the same thing, semantics, I apologize if that wasn't clear.
Every time you reply to me, you slightly change what you are saying, so I'm just going to bow out here.8 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »LCHF! Any diet which reduces inflammatory foods and increases intake of foods high in anti oxidants!
Bacon, cheese, coconut oil, bulletproof coffee and "fat bombs" are anti-inflammatory and high in antioxidants?
Foods high in saturated fats are definitely less inflammatory than foods high in polyunsaturated fats!
Are you suggesting that the foods you listed are the ‘only’ foods you can eat on a LCHF diet?
Are you suggesting that the foods eaten by people not on ketogenic diets are all inflammatory and low in antioxidants?tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »LCHF! Any diet which reduces inflammatory foods and increases intake of foods high in anti oxidants!
Bacon, cheese, coconut oil, bulletproof coffee and "fat bombs" are anti-inflammatory and high in antioxidants?
Foods high in saturated fats are definitely less inflammatory than foods high in polyunsaturated fats!
Are you suggesting that the foods you listed are the ‘only’ foods you can eat on a LCHF diet?
Are you suggesting that the foods eaten by people not on ketogenic diets are all inflammatory and low in antioxidants?
I’m suggesting a person on a LCHF (not necessarily keto) will likely be eating less inflammatory and oxidising foods (less grains and refined sugars)! Are you suggesting otherwise?
Are you familiar with Blue Zones? Lots of fruits, veggies, legumes, whole grains, incredibly high incidence of healthy and active centenarians?
Fruit and veggies, saturated fats, nuts and seeds are all great inclusions in a LCHF diet - especially the veggies, nuts seeds.
I should think a diet like the blue zone is very high in antioxidants and low in most types of inflammatory foods.
You said grains are inflammatory, Blue Zones diets incorporate lots of grains. Also lots of fruit and wine, ie sugar. And very low in saturated fat - very little or no meat and dairy.
Are you distinguishing between whole grains or refined grains?
If the diet is very little meat, then it’s definitely not for me.
The wine sounds good!
The point is, you didn't distinguish, you just said "grains".
It is certainly possible to eat a moderate or even high carb diet while avoiding refined grains and sugar. The Blue Zones have been doing it for generations.
I'm not saying the way the Blue Zones eat is necessary for good health, simply that I can't agree that a diet that is so different from the way they eat is somehow optimal.
First off please don’t misrepresent what I have said. I didn’t say avoid, I said reduce!
Secondly both whole grains and refined grains are inflammatory, but then there are plenty of foods that are.
You do not need to avoid these foods in a healthy diet. But reducing an intake of these foods will certainly be healthy.
If you have any studies that prove LCHF Is not an optimal or healthy diet, feel free to post them!
You can't prove a negative, that is kind of "Scientific Process 101".
I think of avoiding and reducing as pretty much the same thing, semantics, I apologize if that wasn't clear.
Every time you reply to me, you slightly change what you are saying, so I'm just going to bow out here.
19 -
There isn't any one diet that's right for everyone. Personal preferences, medical history, psychological perspective all factor in. There's a right diet for everyone, but not one right diet for all.9
-
I eat lots of veggies, avocado, some fruit, beans, unsalted nuts like walnuts and sunflower seeds, fatty fish like sardines and salmon, a little chicken, red meat about once per month, use healthy oils like olive, sunflower, and flaxseed, and half cup servings of whole grains like brown rice, farro, and oatmeal once or twice per day.. I avoid processed foods, and make my own salad dressings and seasonings instead of buying canned or premade sauces that are full of salt, sugar, and additives. I used stevia instead of sugar in my coffee. When I need a sugar fix, I snack on dark chocolate or for a big binge a vegan cupcake or cashew milk ice cream (but once or twice per month). Even eating fruit 2 to 3 times per day, veggies at every meal, and whole grains, I rarely exceed my sugar or sodium goal. These foods are full of fiber and nutrients. There is no magic bullet--you need to eat a variety of foods, be conscious of portion sizes, use your scale to gauge your progress, get daily exercise, and forgive yourself the occasional lapse if you want to have "the healthiest diet in the world."
7 -
For weight loss, whatever a person can stick to and meet their calorie goals.
For health, I am a fan of the Mediterranean and nordic ways of eating. I love the emphasis on fresh seasonal fruits and veggies, seafood and other lean protein, and inclusion of whole grains and dairy. I feel that keto and other low carb diets do not include enough fruits and vegetables for optimal health.
4 -
For weight loss, whatever a person can stick to and meet their calorie goals.
For health, I am a fan of the Mediterranean and nordic ways of eating. I love the emphasis on fresh seasonal fruits and veggies, seafood and other lean protein, and inclusion of whole grains and dairy. I feel that keto and other low carb diets do not include enough fruits and vegetables for optimal health.
How much fruit and veg is required for optimal health (peer reviewed studies if you have them)?
12 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »For weight loss, whatever a person can stick to and meet their calorie goals.
For health, I am a fan of the Mediterranean and nordic ways of eating. I love the emphasis on fresh seasonal fruits and veggies, seafood and other lean protein, and inclusion of whole grains and dairy. I feel that keto and other low carb diets do not include enough fruits and vegetables for optimal health.
How much fruit and veg is required for optimal health (peer reviewed studies if you have them)?
Depends how much organ meat you're willing to eat to meet your micronutrient needs.
11 -
stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »For weight loss, whatever a person can stick to and meet their calorie goals.
For health, I am a fan of the Mediterranean and nordic ways of eating. I love the emphasis on fresh seasonal fruits and veggies, seafood and other lean protein, and inclusion of whole grains and dairy. I feel that keto and other low carb diets do not include enough fruits and vegetables for optimal health.
How much fruit and veg is required for optimal health (peer reviewed studies if you have them)?
Depends how much organ meat you're willing to eat to meet your micronutrient needs.
Or fat from decent quality meat.
Personally I like liver, kidneys (occasional lamb heart) bone broth.
But if I didn’t eat any of those things, how much veg and fruit would I need for my diet to be optimal? Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of veg or fruit?9 -
Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2
6 -
stevencloser wrote: »Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2
As I am not advocating eating just meat as a diet, my question was:
Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of fruit or veg?5 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2
As I am not advocating eating just meat as a diet, my question was:
Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of fruit or veg?
Fruits and vegetables have varying amounts of micronutrients, but if you take broccoli (often recognized as nutrient-rich) as an example, no. You wouldn't get "optimal" micronutrients from 100 grams of broccoli. The context of the rest of the diet would be important, but if you're counting on 100 grams of broccoli to give you what you need, you're going to be in trouble.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2
As I am not advocating eating just meat as a diet, my question was:
Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of fruit or veg?
Fruits and vegetables have varying amounts of micronutrients, but if you take broccoli (often recognized as nutrient-rich) as an example, no. You wouldn't get "optimal" micronutrients from 100 grams of broccoli. The context of the rest of the diet would be important, but if you're counting on 100 grams of broccoli to give you what you need, you're going to be in trouble.
100g of broccoli is 7g of cArbs! Could I get my micro nutritional requirements from the 33 - 93g of carbs from other fruit and veg ?
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2
As I am not advocating eating just meat as a diet, my question was:
Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of fruit or veg?
Fruits and vegetables have varying amounts of micronutrients, but if you take broccoli (often recognized as nutrient-rich) as an example, no. You wouldn't get "optimal" micronutrients from 100 grams of broccoli. The context of the rest of the diet would be important, but if you're counting on 100 grams of broccoli to give you what you need, you're going to be in trouble.
100g of broccoli is 7g of cArbs! Could I get my micro nutritional requirements from the 33 - 93g of carbs from other fruit and veg ?
Are you asking about eating 40 -100 grams of carbohydrates per day? Because your question was about eating 40-100 grams of fruit or vegetables.
2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2
As I am not advocating eating just meat as a diet, my question was:
Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of fruit or veg?
Fruits and vegetables have varying amounts of micronutrients, but if you take broccoli (often recognized as nutrient-rich) as an example, no. You wouldn't get "optimal" micronutrients from 100 grams of broccoli. The context of the rest of the diet would be important, but if you're counting on 100 grams of broccoli to give you what you need, you're going to be in trouble.
100g of broccoli is 7g of cArbs! Could I get my micro nutritional requirements from the 33 - 93g of carbs from other fruit and veg ?
Are you asking about eating 40 -100 grams of carbohydrates per day? Because your question was about eating 40-100 grams of fruit or vegetables.
Sorry I wasn’t literal enough.40. - 100g of carbs ( general range for LCHF) from fruit and veg .
2 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2
As I am not advocating eating just meat as a diet, my question was:
Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of fruit or veg?
Fruits and vegetables have varying amounts of micronutrients, but if you take broccoli (often recognized as nutrient-rich) as an example, no. You wouldn't get "optimal" micronutrients from 100 grams of broccoli. The context of the rest of the diet would be important, but if you're counting on 100 grams of broccoli to give you what you need, you're going to be in trouble.
100g of broccoli is 7g of cArbs! Could I get my micro nutritional requirements from the 33 - 93g of carbs from other fruit and veg ?
Are you asking about eating 40 -100 grams of carbohydrates per day? Because your question was about eating 40-100 grams of fruit or vegetables.
Sorry I wasn’t literal enough.40. - 100g of carbs ( general range for LCHF) from fruit and veg .
Isn't this going to depend on the fruits and vegetables you choose? Fruits and vegetables aren't interchangeable foods, they have varying amounts of different micronutrients.
I'm sure there are ways one could meet their nutritional needs eating 100 grams of carbohydrates per day, but if you're arguing that it is *optimal* for people to limit their fruit and vegetable consumption to hit this target, I'm not sure that I'd agree.8 -
The one you can stick to for the rest of your life. Most "diets" fail because people are only temporarily on them, as soon as they stop, the weight usually comes right back on.
I eat whatever I want with the only rule that I remain at a calorie deficit until I hit my goal weight/size. Then I plan on eating at maintenance. I eat mostly healthy, but I never deprive myself of anything because it's junk food. I just eat "junk" in moderation and either increase my exercise or rearrange my eating to fit in the snack. I'd be (and was while yo-yo dieting) miserable eating only "good/clean" food, and mental health is just as important as physical health.4 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »For weight loss, whatever a person can stick to and meet their calorie goals.
For health, I am a fan of the Mediterranean and nordic ways of eating. I love the emphasis on fresh seasonal fruits and veggies, seafood and other lean protein, and inclusion of whole grains and dairy. I feel that keto and other low carb diets do not include enough fruits and vegetables for optimal health.
How much fruit and veg is required for optimal health (peer reviewed studies if you have them)?
It's an opinion and clearly stated as such. Proof is not necessary.
1 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2
As I am not advocating eating just meat as a diet, my question was:
Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of fruit or veg?
Fruits and vegetables have varying amounts of micronutrients, but if you take broccoli (often recognized as nutrient-rich) as an example, no. You wouldn't get "optimal" micronutrients from 100 grams of broccoli. The context of the rest of the diet would be important, but if you're counting on 100 grams of broccoli to give you what you need, you're going to be in trouble.
100g of broccoli is 7g of cArbs! Could I get my micro nutritional requirements from the 33 - 93g of carbs from other fruit and veg ?
Are you asking about eating 40 -100 grams of carbohydrates per day? Because your question was about eating 40-100 grams of fruit or vegetables.
Sorry I wasn’t literal enough.40. - 100g of carbs ( general range for LCHF) from fruit and veg .
You asked about 40-100 g of vegetables/fruits, that's not just a matter of not being "literal" enough; you apparently meant something entirely different from what you said.
My view is that sure, if someone wanted to, they could get sufficient fruit/veg (it would be mostly veg) on 40-100 g net carbs, although it would likely require a bit more attention than eating a nutrition focused but less low carb diet. There's nothing wrong with that; a vegan diet requires more attention (and some supplementation) to meet all nutrients, and yet can be as healthy as any diet.
I found myself cutting back on vegetables/worried about type of veg, and not really able to get in fruit (I did eat some nuts and some greek yogurt, which added carbs, both of which I think are healthy and the nuts I consider important), when eating around 35 g net carbs/60-65 g total carbs, and I think my diet was healthy and more than adequate for micronutrients, although I don't like the idea of avoiding fruit to the extent I had to. IMO, there are more benefits from foods such as fruits and veg and other whole foods that tend to be eaten in most blue zone diets and seem to correlate with positive effects than we have actually identified. The UK's recent promotion of 10+ servings of veg/fruit is based on such correlations, although I'd agree that it could be due to other causes (the types of people who eat such diets would have other good habits, the produce would displace other foods).
That aside, IMO, you can get enough veg on a keto diet if you make an effort and use most of your carbs for veg and don't feel compelled to cut carbs as low as is sometimes promoted (20 g total carbs, or even 40 g total carbs isn't something I'd be comfortable with).4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2
As I am not advocating eating just meat as a diet, my question was:
Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of fruit or veg?
Fruits and vegetables have varying amounts of micronutrients, but if you take broccoli (often recognized as nutrient-rich) as an example, no. You wouldn't get "optimal" micronutrients from 100 grams of broccoli. The context of the rest of the diet would be important, but if you're counting on 100 grams of broccoli to give you what you need, you're going to be in trouble.
100g of broccoli is 7g of cArbs! Could I get my micro nutritional requirements from the 33 - 93g of carbs from other fruit and veg ?
Are you asking about eating 40 -100 grams of carbohydrates per day? Because your question was about eating 40-100 grams of fruit or vegetables.
Sorry I wasn’t literal enough.40. - 100g of carbs ( general range for LCHF) from fruit and veg .
You asked about 40-100 g of vegetables/fruits, that's not just a matter of not being "literal" enough; you apparently meant something entirely different from what you said.
My view is that sure, if someone wanted to, they could get sufficient fruit/veg (it would be mostly veg) on 40-100 g net carbs, although it would likely require a bit more attention than eating a nutrition focused but less low carb diet. There's nothing wrong with that; a vegan diet requires more attention (and some supplementation) to meet all nutrients, and yet can be as healthy as any diet.
I found myself cutting back on vegetables/worried about type of veg, and not really able to get in fruit (I did eat some nuts and some greek yogurt, which added carbs, both of which I think are healthy and the nuts I consider important), when eating around 35 g net carbs/60-65 g total carbs, and I think my diet was healthy and more than adequate for micronutrients, although I don't like the idea of avoiding fruit to the extent I had to. IMO, there are more benefits from foods such as fruits and veg and other whole foods that tend to be eaten in most blue zone diets and seem to correlate with positive effects than we have actually identified. The UK's recent promotion of 10+ servings of veg/fruit is based on such correlations, although I'd agree that it could be due to other causes (the types of people who eat such diets would have other good habits, the produce would displace other foods).
That aside, IMO, you can get enough veg on a keto diet if you make an effort and use most of your carbs for veg and don't feel compelled to cut carbs as low as is sometimes promoted (20 g total carbs, or even 40 g total carbs isn't something I'd be comfortable with).
It was off the back of a conversation about low carb not allowing for optimal nutrition.
I think it a little disingenuous to suggest that you thought I was talking only 7g of carbs, but hey MFP has been like that for years.
I doubt most on a SAD diet get 40 - 100g (of carbs) from fruit and veg.10 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2
As I am not advocating eating just meat as a diet, my question was:
Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of fruit or veg?
Fruits and vegetables have varying amounts of micronutrients, but if you take broccoli (often recognized as nutrient-rich) as an example, no. You wouldn't get "optimal" micronutrients from 100 grams of broccoli. The context of the rest of the diet would be important, but if you're counting on 100 grams of broccoli to give you what you need, you're going to be in trouble.
100g of broccoli is 7g of cArbs! Could I get my micro nutritional requirements from the 33 - 93g of carbs from other fruit and veg ?
Are you asking about eating 40 -100 grams of carbohydrates per day? Because your question was about eating 40-100 grams of fruit or vegetables.
Sorry I wasn’t literal enough.40. - 100g of carbs ( general range for LCHF) from fruit and veg .
You asked about 40-100 g of vegetables/fruits, that's not just a matter of not being "literal" enough; you apparently meant something entirely different from what you said.
My view is that sure, if someone wanted to, they could get sufficient fruit/veg (it would be mostly veg) on 40-100 g net carbs, although it would likely require a bit more attention than eating a nutrition focused but less low carb diet. There's nothing wrong with that; a vegan diet requires more attention (and some supplementation) to meet all nutrients, and yet can be as healthy as any diet.
I found myself cutting back on vegetables/worried about type of veg, and not really able to get in fruit (I did eat some nuts and some greek yogurt, which added carbs, both of which I think are healthy and the nuts I consider important), when eating around 35 g net carbs/60-65 g total carbs, and I think my diet was healthy and more than adequate for micronutrients, although I don't like the idea of avoiding fruit to the extent I had to. IMO, there are more benefits from foods such as fruits and veg and other whole foods that tend to be eaten in most blue zone diets and seem to correlate with positive effects than we have actually identified. The UK's recent promotion of 10+ servings of veg/fruit is based on such correlations, although I'd agree that it could be due to other causes (the types of people who eat such diets would have other good habits, the produce would displace other foods).
That aside, IMO, you can get enough veg on a keto diet if you make an effort and use most of your carbs for veg and don't feel compelled to cut carbs as low as is sometimes promoted (20 g total carbs, or even 40 g total carbs isn't something I'd be comfortable with).
It was off the back of a conversation about low carb not allowing for optimal nutrition.
I think it a little disingenuous to suggest that you thought I was talking only 7g of carbs, but hey MFP has been like that for years.
I doubt most on a SAD diet get 40 - 100g (of carbs) from fruit and veg.
I've popped in and out of this thread, and saw solely the post in question without going back to read the rest, so no, not disingenuous. I thought you were suggesting that 40-100 g of carbs was sufficient. Clearly I was not the only one with that impression. Is it that hard to acknowledge that you mis-typed and not try to blame the reader for going with what you actually wrote?
I doubt most on a keto diet get 40-100 g of carbs from fruit and veg (most on a keto diet aim for under 20 g net of carbs, IME, and don't get most of them from fruit and veg), but like I said I think it's possible to eat sufficient veg for health on keto, and I think I did when I was experimenting with keto, although I eat far more fruits and veg when not trying to do keto.
I don't know what the so-called SAD has to do with it, as we are talking about efforts to eat healthfully, no?9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2
As I am not advocating eating just meat as a diet, my question was:
Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of fruit or veg?
Fruits and vegetables have varying amounts of micronutrients, but if you take broccoli (often recognized as nutrient-rich) as an example, no. You wouldn't get "optimal" micronutrients from 100 grams of broccoli. The context of the rest of the diet would be important, but if you're counting on 100 grams of broccoli to give you what you need, you're going to be in trouble.
100g of broccoli is 7g of cArbs! Could I get my micro nutritional requirements from the 33 - 93g of carbs from other fruit and veg ?
Are you asking about eating 40 -100 grams of carbohydrates per day? Because your question was about eating 40-100 grams of fruit or vegetables.
Sorry I wasn’t literal enough.40. - 100g of carbs ( general range for LCHF) from fruit and veg .
You asked about 40-100 g of vegetables/fruits, that's not just a matter of not being "literal" enough; you apparently meant something entirely different from what you said.
My view is that sure, if someone wanted to, they could get sufficient fruit/veg (it would be mostly veg) on 40-100 g net carbs, although it would likely require a bit more attention than eating a nutrition focused but less low carb diet. There's nothing wrong with that; a vegan diet requires more attention (and some supplementation) to meet all nutrients, and yet can be as healthy as any diet.
I found myself cutting back on vegetables/worried about type of veg, and not really able to get in fruit (I did eat some nuts and some greek yogurt, which added carbs, both of which I think are healthy and the nuts I consider important), when eating around 35 g net carbs/60-65 g total carbs, and I think my diet was healthy and more than adequate for micronutrients, although I don't like the idea of avoiding fruit to the extent I had to. IMO, there are more benefits from foods such as fruits and veg and other whole foods that tend to be eaten in most blue zone diets and seem to correlate with positive effects than we have actually identified. The UK's recent promotion of 10+ servings of veg/fruit is based on such correlations, although I'd agree that it could be due to other causes (the types of people who eat such diets would have other good habits, the produce would displace other foods).
That aside, IMO, you can get enough veg on a keto diet if you make an effort and use most of your carbs for veg and don't feel compelled to cut carbs as low as is sometimes promoted (20 g total carbs, or even 40 g total carbs isn't something I'd be comfortable with).
It was off the back of a conversation about low carb not allowing for optimal nutrition.
I think it a little disingenuous to suggest that you thought I was talking only 7g of carbs, but hey MFP has been like that for years.
I doubt most on a SAD diet get 40 - 100g (of carbs) from fruit and veg.
I've popped in and out of this thread, and saw solely the post in question without going back to read the rest, so no, not disingenuous. I thought you were suggesting that 40-100 g of carbs was sufficient. Clearly I was not the only one with that impression. Is it that hard to acknowledge that you mis-typed and not try to blame the reader for going with what you actually wrote?
I doubt most on a keto diet get 40-100 g of carbs from fruit and veg (most on a keto diet aim for under 20 g net of carbs, IME, and don't get most of them from fruit and veg), but like I said I think it's possible to eat sufficient veg for health on keto, and I think I did when I was experimenting with keto, although I eat far more fruits and veg when not trying to do keto.
I don't know what the so-called SAD has to do with it, as we are talking about efforts to eat healthfully, no?
I was suggesting 40-100g of carbs was sufficient, you didn’t misunderstand it; that’s what I meant!
I’m currently eating under 60g of carbs at the moment and pretty much all of my carbs are coming from a whole range of vegetables.
In fact I probably eat more vegetables when I am eating a LCHF diet than when I switch to a more varied diet. Seldom can I eat intuitively and remain in a calorie deficit when on a varied diet!
8 -
To play devil's advocate, I think much lower levels of carbs (vege) than 40g is required for sufficient nutrition. I think animal products (muscle meat, seafood, eggs, full fat dairy) have all the nutrition that is generally needed, often because nutrition needs appear to change based upon what foods you are eating.
Now I'm not saying that veggies are bad or anything like that. Just that animal products can be used instead of veggies to get adequate nutrition. A different source of nutrients, that's all.15 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2
As I am not advocating eating just meat as a diet, my question was:
Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of fruit or veg?
Fruits and vegetables have varying amounts of micronutrients, but if you take broccoli (often recognized as nutrient-rich) as an example, no. You wouldn't get "optimal" micronutrients from 100 grams of broccoli. The context of the rest of the diet would be important, but if you're counting on 100 grams of broccoli to give you what you need, you're going to be in trouble.
100g of broccoli is 7g of cArbs! Could I get my micro nutritional requirements from the 33 - 93g of carbs from other fruit and veg ?
Are you asking about eating 40 -100 grams of carbohydrates per day? Because your question was about eating 40-100 grams of fruit or vegetables.
Sorry I wasn’t literal enough.40. - 100g of carbs ( general range for LCHF) from fruit and veg .
You asked about 40-100 g of vegetables/fruits, that's not just a matter of not being "literal" enough; you apparently meant something entirely different from what you said.
My view is that sure, if someone wanted to, they could get sufficient fruit/veg (it would be mostly veg) on 40-100 g net carbs, although it would likely require a bit more attention than eating a nutrition focused but less low carb diet. There's nothing wrong with that; a vegan diet requires more attention (and some supplementation) to meet all nutrients, and yet can be as healthy as any diet.
I found myself cutting back on vegetables/worried about type of veg, and not really able to get in fruit (I did eat some nuts and some greek yogurt, which added carbs, both of which I think are healthy and the nuts I consider important), when eating around 35 g net carbs/60-65 g total carbs, and I think my diet was healthy and more than adequate for micronutrients, although I don't like the idea of avoiding fruit to the extent I had to. IMO, there are more benefits from foods such as fruits and veg and other whole foods that tend to be eaten in most blue zone diets and seem to correlate with positive effects than we have actually identified. The UK's recent promotion of 10+ servings of veg/fruit is based on such correlations, although I'd agree that it could be due to other causes (the types of people who eat such diets would have other good habits, the produce would displace other foods).
That aside, IMO, you can get enough veg on a keto diet if you make an effort and use most of your carbs for veg and don't feel compelled to cut carbs as low as is sometimes promoted (20 g total carbs, or even 40 g total carbs isn't something I'd be comfortable with).
It was off the back of a conversation about low carb not allowing for optimal nutrition.
I think it a little disingenuous to suggest that you thought I was talking only 7g of carbs, but hey MFP has been like that for years.
I doubt most on a SAD diet get 40 - 100g (of carbs) from fruit and veg.
I've popped in and out of this thread, and saw solely the post in question without going back to read the rest, so no, not disingenuous. I thought you were suggesting that 40-100 g of carbs was sufficient. Clearly I was not the only one with that impression. Is it that hard to acknowledge that you mis-typed and not try to blame the reader for going with what you actually wrote?
I doubt most on a keto diet get 40-100 g of carbs from fruit and veg (most on a keto diet aim for under 20 g net of carbs, IME, and don't get most of them from fruit and veg), but like I said I think it's possible to eat sufficient veg for health on keto, and I think I did when I was experimenting with keto, although I eat far more fruits and veg when not trying to do keto.
I don't know what the so-called SAD has to do with it, as we are talking about efforts to eat healthfully, no?
I was suggesting 40-100g of carbs was sufficient, you didn’t misunderstand it; that’s what I meant!
I’m currently eating under 60g of carbs at the moment and pretty much all of my carbs are coming from a whole range of vegetables.
In fact I probably eat more vegetables when I am eating a LCHF diet than when I switch to a more varied diet. Seldom can I eat intuitively and remain in a calorie deficit when on a varied diet!
Oh, sorry, now I mistyped. From the post I picked up on, I thought you were suggesting that 40-100 g of veg (which IMO is way too little) was sufficient. As noted, I think 40-100 g of net carbs can easily be sufficient too, if one uses them wisely. Less certain about 40 g of total carbs, and I think any very low carb diet requires more vigilance, but so do some other restricted but healthy diets.
I don't think any one kind of diet (keto, vegan, Med, so on) is "optimal," but I think most can be done in healthy and not healthy ways, so if one is drawn to keto for various reasons I think it can be done in a very healthy way. I just don't think keto is on its own healthier than other diets (and certain things about it can make it more challenging to get in adequate micros, IMO). But if you are switching from a diet where you cared nothing about nutrition to one where you are nutrition-focused and also keto, sure, it's going to be healthier, but the reason ISN'T that keto is "optimal" (I don't believe in one optimal diet, although I think there are certain things healthy diets share) or even that it's inherently a healthy change. I tried keto after eating a healthy calorie-appropriate diet for quite a while, and while I thought it was healthy, the way I did it, I didn't think my diet had improved (indeed, I thought it was probably a little less healthy, but still perfectly fine).
I find the idea that one eats more veg on a keto diet weird, because what's stopping you from eating all the same veg (and more if you want) on a diet with more carbs? I eat more veg when not eating keto, and like I said when doing keto -- 35 g net, 60-65 g total -- I was getting all carbs from about a serving a nuts, occasional greek yogurt (plain), avocado, and veg. I didn't think the amount of veg I was eating was too little for health, no. I did find it to be less than I wanted and I missed being able to eat fruit and being able to rely on beans and lentils and the like as a protein option. (I also missed potatoes, sweet potatoes, and pasta, but those I can take or leave. I do find that including them in my diet doesn't cause me to eat less "optimally.")2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2
As I am not advocating eating just meat as a diet, my question was:
Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of fruit or veg?
Fruits and vegetables have varying amounts of micronutrients, but if you take broccoli (often recognized as nutrient-rich) as an example, no. You wouldn't get "optimal" micronutrients from 100 grams of broccoli. The context of the rest of the diet would be important, but if you're counting on 100 grams of broccoli to give you what you need, you're going to be in trouble.
100g of broccoli is 7g of cArbs! Could I get my micro nutritional requirements from the 33 - 93g of carbs from other fruit and veg ?
Are you asking about eating 40 -100 grams of carbohydrates per day? Because your question was about eating 40-100 grams of fruit or vegetables.
Sorry I wasn’t literal enough.40. - 100g of carbs ( general range for LCHF) from fruit and veg .
You asked about 40-100 g of vegetables/fruits, that's not just a matter of not being "literal" enough; you apparently meant something entirely different from what you said.
My view is that sure, if someone wanted to, they could get sufficient fruit/veg (it would be mostly veg) on 40-100 g net carbs, although it would likely require a bit more attention than eating a nutrition focused but less low carb diet. There's nothing wrong with that; a vegan diet requires more attention (and some supplementation) to meet all nutrients, and yet can be as healthy as any diet.
I found myself cutting back on vegetables/worried about type of veg, and not really able to get in fruit (I did eat some nuts and some greek yogurt, which added carbs, both of which I think are healthy and the nuts I consider important), when eating around 35 g net carbs/60-65 g total carbs, and I think my diet was healthy and more than adequate for micronutrients, although I don't like the idea of avoiding fruit to the extent I had to. IMO, there are more benefits from foods such as fruits and veg and other whole foods that tend to be eaten in most blue zone diets and seem to correlate with positive effects than we have actually identified. The UK's recent promotion of 10+ servings of veg/fruit is based on such correlations, although I'd agree that it could be due to other causes (the types of people who eat such diets would have other good habits, the produce would displace other foods).
That aside, IMO, you can get enough veg on a keto diet if you make an effort and use most of your carbs for veg and don't feel compelled to cut carbs as low as is sometimes promoted (20 g total carbs, or even 40 g total carbs isn't something I'd be comfortable with).
It was off the back of a conversation about low carb not allowing for optimal nutrition.
I think it a little disingenuous to suggest that you thought I was talking only 7g of carbs, but hey MFP has been like that for years.
I doubt most on a SAD diet get 40 - 100g (of carbs) from fruit and veg.
I've popped in and out of this thread, and saw solely the post in question without going back to read the rest, so no, not disingenuous. I thought you were suggesting that 40-100 g of carbs was sufficient. Clearly I was not the only one with that impression. Is it that hard to acknowledge that you mis-typed and not try to blame the reader for going with what you actually wrote?
I doubt most on a keto diet get 40-100 g of carbs from fruit and veg (most on a keto diet aim for under 20 g net of carbs, IME, and don't get most of them from fruit and veg), but like I said I think it's possible to eat sufficient veg for health on keto, and I think I did when I was experimenting with keto, although I eat far more fruits and veg when not trying to do keto.
I don't know what the so-called SAD has to do with it, as we are talking about efforts to eat healthfully, no?
I was suggesting 40-100g of carbs was sufficient, you didn’t misunderstand it; that’s what I meant!
I’m currently eating under 60g of carbs at the moment and pretty much all of my carbs are coming from a whole range of vegetables.
In fact I probably eat more vegetables when I am eating a LCHF diet than when I switch to a more varied diet. Seldom can I eat intuitively and remain in a calorie deficit when on a varied diet!
Oh, sorry, now I mistyped. From the post I picked up on, I thought you were suggesting that 40-100 g of veg (which IMO is way too little) was sufficient. As noted, I think 40-100 g of net carbs can easily be sufficient too, if one uses them wisely. Less certain about 40 g of total carbs, and I think any very low carb diet requires more vigilance, but so do some other restricted but healthy diets.
I don't think any one kind of diet (keto, vegan, Med, so on) is "optimal," but I think most can be done in healthy and not healthy ways, so if one is drawn to keto for various reasons I think it can be done in a very healthy way. I just don't think keto is on its own healthier than other diets (and certain things about it can make it more challenging to get in adequate micros, IMO). But if you are switching from a diet where you cared nothing about nutrition to one where you are nutrition-focused and also keto, sure, it's going to be healthier, but the reason ISN'T that keto is "optimal" (I don't believe in one optimal diet, although I think there are certain things healthy diets share) or even that it's inherently a healthy change. I tried keto after eating a healthy calorie-appropriate diet for quite a while, and while I thought it was healthy, the way I did it, I didn't think my diet had improved (indeed, I thought it was probably a little less healthy, but still perfectly fine).
I find the idea that one eats more veg on a keto diet weird, because what's stopping you from eating all the same veg (and more if you want) on a diet with more carbs? I eat more veg when not eating keto, and like I said when doing keto -- 35 g net, 60-65 g total -- I was getting all carbs from about a serving a nuts, occasional greek yogurt (plain), avocado, and veg. I didn't think the amount of veg I was eating was too little for health, no. I did find it to be less than I wanted and I missed being able to eat fruit and being able to rely on beans and lentils and the like as a protein option. (I also missed potatoes, sweet potatoes, and pasta, but those I can take or leave. I do find that including them in my diet doesn't cause me to eat less "optimally.")
It certainly is easy to mis-type stuff and get misunderstood on here.
I agree keto or LCHF is no healthier than any other type of healthy diet. They all have their pros & cons.
Regards weird that one eats more veg on a LCHF diet than a higher carb diet, I can only speak from my own personal experience and that is how it is for me. I certainly get a lot more varied selection of veg on a LCHF diet. In the last 2 days I have eaten a good portion of Courgettes, lettuce, carrots, peppers, onion, mushrooms, broccoli (of course), cauliflower & beetroot.
I generally wouldn't eat anywhere near that amount of veg if I were not on LCHF, but I suppose all that proves is we are all different and one size does not fit all.
3 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2
As I am not advocating eating just meat as a diet, my question was:
Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of fruit or veg?
Fruits and vegetables have varying amounts of micronutrients, but if you take broccoli (often recognized as nutrient-rich) as an example, no. You wouldn't get "optimal" micronutrients from 100 grams of broccoli. The context of the rest of the diet would be important, but if you're counting on 100 grams of broccoli to give you what you need, you're going to be in trouble.
100g of broccoli is 7g of cArbs! Could I get my micro nutritional requirements from the 33 - 93g of carbs from other fruit and veg ?
Are you asking about eating 40 -100 grams of carbohydrates per day? Because your question was about eating 40-100 grams of fruit or vegetables.
Sorry I wasn’t literal enough.40. - 100g of carbs ( general range for LCHF) from fruit and veg .
You asked about 40-100 g of vegetables/fruits, that's not just a matter of not being "literal" enough; you apparently meant something entirely different from what you said.
My view is that sure, if someone wanted to, they could get sufficient fruit/veg (it would be mostly veg) on 40-100 g net carbs, although it would likely require a bit more attention than eating a nutrition focused but less low carb diet. There's nothing wrong with that; a vegan diet requires more attention (and some supplementation) to meet all nutrients, and yet can be as healthy as any diet.
I found myself cutting back on vegetables/worried about type of veg, and not really able to get in fruit (I did eat some nuts and some greek yogurt, which added carbs, both of which I think are healthy and the nuts I consider important), when eating around 35 g net carbs/60-65 g total carbs, and I think my diet was healthy and more than adequate for micronutrients, although I don't like the idea of avoiding fruit to the extent I had to. IMO, there are more benefits from foods such as fruits and veg and other whole foods that tend to be eaten in most blue zone diets and seem to correlate with positive effects than we have actually identified. The UK's recent promotion of 10+ servings of veg/fruit is based on such correlations, although I'd agree that it could be due to other causes (the types of people who eat such diets would have other good habits, the produce would displace other foods).
That aside, IMO, you can get enough veg on a keto diet if you make an effort and use most of your carbs for veg and don't feel compelled to cut carbs as low as is sometimes promoted (20 g total carbs, or even 40 g total carbs isn't something I'd be comfortable with).
It was off the back of a conversation about low carb not allowing for optimal nutrition.
I think it a little disingenuous to suggest that you thought I was talking only 7g of carbs, but hey MFP has been like that for years.
I doubt most on a SAD diet get 40 - 100g (of carbs) from fruit and veg.
I've popped in and out of this thread, and saw solely the post in question without going back to read the rest, so no, not disingenuous. I thought you were suggesting that 40-100 g of carbs was sufficient. Clearly I was not the only one with that impression. Is it that hard to acknowledge that you mis-typed and not try to blame the reader for going with what you actually wrote?
I doubt most on a keto diet get 40-100 g of carbs from fruit and veg (most on a keto diet aim for under 20 g net of carbs, IME, and don't get most of them from fruit and veg), but like I said I think it's possible to eat sufficient veg for health on keto, and I think I did when I was experimenting with keto, although I eat far more fruits and veg when not trying to do keto.
I don't know what the so-called SAD has to do with it, as we are talking about efforts to eat healthfully, no?
I was suggesting 40-100g of carbs was sufficient, you didn’t misunderstand it; that’s what I meant!
I’m currently eating under 60g of carbs at the moment and pretty much all of my carbs are coming from a whole range of vegetables.
In fact I probably eat more vegetables when I am eating a LCHF diet than when I switch to a more varied diet. Seldom can I eat intuitively and remain in a calorie deficit when on a varied diet!
Oh, sorry, now I mistyped. From the post I picked up on, I thought you were suggesting that 40-100 g of veg (which IMO is way too little) was sufficient. As noted, I think 40-100 g of net carbs can easily be sufficient too, if one uses them wisely. Less certain about 40 g of total carbs, and I think any very low carb diet requires more vigilance, but so do some other restricted but healthy diets.
I don't think any one kind of diet (keto, vegan, Med, so on) is "optimal," but I think most can be done in healthy and not healthy ways, so if one is drawn to keto for various reasons I think it can be done in a very healthy way. I just don't think keto is on its own healthier than other diets (and certain things about it can make it more challenging to get in adequate micros, IMO). But if you are switching from a diet where you cared nothing about nutrition to one where you are nutrition-focused and also keto, sure, it's going to be healthier, but the reason ISN'T that keto is "optimal" (I don't believe in one optimal diet, although I think there are certain things healthy diets share) or even that it's inherently a healthy change. I tried keto after eating a healthy calorie-appropriate diet for quite a while, and while I thought it was healthy, the way I did it, I didn't think my diet had improved (indeed, I thought it was probably a little less healthy, but still perfectly fine).
I find the idea that one eats more veg on a keto diet weird, because what's stopping you from eating all the same veg (and more if you want) on a diet with more carbs? I eat more veg when not eating keto, and like I said when doing keto -- 35 g net, 60-65 g total -- I was getting all carbs from about a serving a nuts, occasional greek yogurt (plain), avocado, and veg. I didn't think the amount of veg I was eating was too little for health, no. I did find it to be less than I wanted and I missed being able to eat fruit and being able to rely on beans and lentils and the like as a protein option. (I also missed potatoes, sweet potatoes, and pasta, but those I can take or leave. I do find that including them in my diet doesn't cause me to eat less "optimally.")
It certainly is easy to mis-type stuff and get misunderstood on here.
I agree keto or LCHF is no healthier than any other type of healthy diet. They all have their pros & cons.
Regards weird that one eats more veg on a LCHF diet than a higher carb diet, I can only speak from my own personal experience and that is how it is for me. I certainly get a lot more varied selection of veg on a LCHF diet. In the last 2 days I have eaten a good portion of Courgettes, lettuce, carrots, peppers, onion, mushrooms, broccoli (of course), cauliflower & beetroot.
I generally wouldn't eat anywhere near that amount of veg if I were not on LCHF, but I suppose all that proves is we are all different and one size does not fit all.
Yeah, this is what makes no sense to me, assuming, of course, that you are someone who cares about vegetables.
For me, vegetables are tasty and very important, so I try to have them (ideally a significant amount of them, and a variety of different kinds) at all meals. I don't know why that would be harder to do or something you wouldn't do )(if you cared about it) if not eating LCHF.
What I found when trying out keto was that my initial plan of cutting out non veg carbs other than nuts and occasional greek yogurt was that even my usual amount of veg was often taking me over my goal, so I consciously ate a bit less (but still, IMO, plenty for health purposes).
I guess if you didn't prioritize veg naturally and switched to keto you might find yourself subbing veg for sides like rice and pasta, but for me -- and as I was brought up (eating what we thought of as a basic American diet) -- meals normally had vegetables, protein, and a starch course (although I often do fruit as a sub for a starch), so cutting out the starch course didn't cause me to sub in more veg, but instead more fat -- as like I said I was always at my carb goal or over when doing keto and needed more fat.
To me protein and vegetables are the non negotiable no matter how I eat, although the types of veg (no beans if eating keto) and the type of protein (more meat when doing keto, less meat in my preferred style of eating, no animal products if doing plant based, which I did for Lent and have tried in the past) vary. I also consider nuts and seeds and sources of omega 3s (ideally including fatty fish) important, and fruit somewhat important. Beyond that I prefer -- and find optimal for me -- eating based on what's locally in season and available when possible, and get a farm box, and like to garden, so having to be picky about the type of veg or avoiding fruit (especially what's locally available and delicious here in the summer) or avoiding fall and early winter staples like potatoes and sweet potatoes and maybe too much winter squash or root veg of all kinds is contrary to what works best for me and seems healthiest for me.
NOT saying this is all the same for everyone, I agree with you that one size does not fit all.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2
As I am not advocating eating just meat as a diet, my question was:
Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of fruit or veg?
Fruits and vegetables have varying amounts of micronutrients, but if you take broccoli (often recognized as nutrient-rich) as an example, no. You wouldn't get "optimal" micronutrients from 100 grams of broccoli. The context of the rest of the diet would be important, but if you're counting on 100 grams of broccoli to give you what you need, you're going to be in trouble.
100g of broccoli is 7g of cArbs! Could I get my micro nutritional requirements from the 33 - 93g of carbs from other fruit and veg ?
Are you asking about eating 40 -100 grams of carbohydrates per day? Because your question was about eating 40-100 grams of fruit or vegetables.
Sorry I wasn’t literal enough.40. - 100g of carbs ( general range for LCHF) from fruit and veg .
You asked about 40-100 g of vegetables/fruits, that's not just a matter of not being "literal" enough; you apparently meant something entirely different from what you said.
My view is that sure, if someone wanted to, they could get sufficient fruit/veg (it would be mostly veg) on 40-100 g net carbs, although it would likely require a bit more attention than eating a nutrition focused but less low carb diet. There's nothing wrong with that; a vegan diet requires more attention (and some supplementation) to meet all nutrients, and yet can be as healthy as any diet.
I found myself cutting back on vegetables/worried about type of veg, and not really able to get in fruit (I did eat some nuts and some greek yogurt, which added carbs, both of which I think are healthy and the nuts I consider important), when eating around 35 g net carbs/60-65 g total carbs, and I think my diet was healthy and more than adequate for micronutrients, although I don't like the idea of avoiding fruit to the extent I had to. IMO, there are more benefits from foods such as fruits and veg and other whole foods that tend to be eaten in most blue zone diets and seem to correlate with positive effects than we have actually identified. The UK's recent promotion of 10+ servings of veg/fruit is based on such correlations, although I'd agree that it could be due to other causes (the types of people who eat such diets would have other good habits, the produce would displace other foods).
That aside, IMO, you can get enough veg on a keto diet if you make an effort and use most of your carbs for veg and don't feel compelled to cut carbs as low as is sometimes promoted (20 g total carbs, or even 40 g total carbs isn't something I'd be comfortable with).
It was off the back of a conversation about low carb not allowing for optimal nutrition.
I think it a little disingenuous to suggest that you thought I was talking only 7g of carbs, but hey MFP has been like that for years.
I doubt most on a SAD diet get 40 - 100g (of carbs) from fruit and veg.
I've popped in and out of this thread, and saw solely the post in question without going back to read the rest, so no, not disingenuous. I thought you were suggesting that 40-100 g of carbs was sufficient. Clearly I was not the only one with that impression. Is it that hard to acknowledge that you mis-typed and not try to blame the reader for going with what you actually wrote?
I doubt most on a keto diet get 40-100 g of carbs from fruit and veg (most on a keto diet aim for under 20 g net of carbs, IME, and don't get most of them from fruit and veg), but like I said I think it's possible to eat sufficient veg for health on keto, and I think I did when I was experimenting with keto, although I eat far more fruits and veg when not trying to do keto.
I don't know what the so-called SAD has to do with it, as we are talking about efforts to eat healthfully, no?
I was suggesting 40-100g of carbs was sufficient, you didn’t misunderstand it; that’s what I meant!
I’m currently eating under 60g of carbs at the moment and pretty much all of my carbs are coming from a whole range of vegetables.
In fact I probably eat more vegetables when I am eating a LCHF diet than when I switch to a more varied diet. Seldom can I eat intuitively and remain in a calorie deficit when on a varied diet!
Oh, sorry, now I mistyped. From the post I picked up on, I thought you were suggesting that 40-100 g of veg (which IMO is way too little) was sufficient. As noted, I think 40-100 g of net carbs can easily be sufficient too, if one uses them wisely. Less certain about 40 g of total carbs, and I think any very low carb diet requires more vigilance, but so do some other restricted but healthy diets.
I don't think any one kind of diet (keto, vegan, Med, so on) is "optimal," but I think most can be done in healthy and not healthy ways, so if one is drawn to keto for various reasons I think it can be done in a very healthy way. I just don't think keto is on its own healthier than other diets (and certain things about it can make it more challenging to get in adequate micros, IMO). But if you are switching from a diet where you cared nothing about nutrition to one where you are nutrition-focused and also keto, sure, it's going to be healthier, but the reason ISN'T that keto is "optimal" (I don't believe in one optimal diet, although I think there are certain things healthy diets share) or even that it's inherently a healthy change. I tried keto after eating a healthy calorie-appropriate diet for quite a while, and while I thought it was healthy, the way I did it, I didn't think my diet had improved (indeed, I thought it was probably a little less healthy, but still perfectly fine).
I find the idea that one eats more veg on a keto diet weird, because what's stopping you from eating all the same veg (and more if you want) on a diet with more carbs? I eat more veg when not eating keto, and like I said when doing keto -- 35 g net, 60-65 g total -- I was getting all carbs from about a serving a nuts, occasional greek yogurt (plain), avocado, and veg. I didn't think the amount of veg I was eating was too little for health, no. I did find it to be less than I wanted and I missed being able to eat fruit and being able to rely on beans and lentils and the like as a protein option. (I also missed potatoes, sweet potatoes, and pasta, but those I can take or leave. I do find that including them in my diet doesn't cause me to eat less "optimally.")
It certainly is easy to mis-type stuff and get misunderstood on here.
I agree keto or LCHF is no healthier than any other type of healthy diet. They all have their pros & cons.
Regards weird that one eats more veg on a LCHF diet than a higher carb diet, I can only speak from my own personal experience and that is how it is for me. I certainly get a lot more varied selection of veg on a LCHF diet. In the last 2 days I have eaten a good portion of Courgettes, lettuce, carrots, peppers, onion, mushrooms, broccoli (of course), cauliflower & beetroot.
I generally wouldn't eat anywhere near that amount of veg if I were not on LCHF, but I suppose all that proves is we are all different and one size does not fit all.
Yeah, this is what makes no sense to me, assuming, of course, that you are someone who cares about vegetables.
For me, vegetables are tasty and very important, so I try to have them (ideally a significant amount of them, and a variety of different kinds) at all meals. I don't know why that would be harder to do or something you wouldn't do )(if you cared about it) if not eating LCHF.
What I found when trying out keto was that my initial plan of cutting out non veg carbs other than nuts and occasional greek yogurt was that even my usual amount of veg was often taking me over my goal, so I consciously ate a bit less (but still, IMO, plenty for health purposes).
I guess if you didn't prioritize veg naturally and switched to keto you might find yourself subbing veg for sides like rice and pasta, but for me -- and as I was brought up (eating what we thought of as a basic American diet) -- meals normally had vegetables, protein, and a starch course (although I often do fruit as a sub for a starch), so cutting out the starch course didn't cause me to sub in more veg, but instead more fat -- as like I said I was always at my carb goal or over when doing keto and needed more fat.
To me protein and vegetables are the non negotiable no matter how I eat, although the types of veg (no beans if eating keto) and the type of protein (more meat when doing keto, less meat in my preferred style of eating, no animal products if doing plant based, which I did for Lent and have tried in the past) vary. I also consider nuts and seeds and sources of omega 3s (ideally including fatty fish) important, and fruit somewhat important. Beyond that I prefer -- and find optimal for me -- eating based on what's locally in season and available when possible, and get a farm box, and like to garden, so having to be picky about the type of veg or avoiding fruit (especially what's locally available and delicious here in the summer) or avoiding fall and early winter staples like potatoes and sweet potatoes and maybe too much winter squash or root veg of all kinds is contrary to what works best for me and seems healthiest for me.
NOT saying this is all the same for everyone, I agree with you that one size does not fit all.
I think you nailed it, I am not a big veg fan.
But when I am eating in a LCHF model I eat lots of salady stuff or casseroles or meat (fav food) based meals where veg is naturally included or a good accompaniment to the meal.
Other people I know who eat LCHF seem to do the same quite often. I'm not saying that is the same for everyone, but to me it seems to make sense.
The LCHF forums and sites I frequent are very pro-veg and fruit (generally lower sugar fruits like berries).
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
- 232.6K 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