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.
Keto diet= good or bad
Replies
-
I do drift out of ketosis for 36-48 hours a few times a month when I do carb refeeds without any major issues. However I do notice a bit of flareup in my lower back and hips due to arthritis and my lower back being fused.
I've always wondered if I was crazy when I began associating high carb intake with arthritis flares. I have other things that cause them too, but no one ever took me seriously. I've used "carb conscious" eating since December and I have found it has helped my arthritis significantly.5 -
sammidelvecchio wrote: »I've always wondered if I was crazy when I began associating high carb intake with arthritis flares. I have other things that cause them too, but no one ever took me seriously. I've used "carb conscious" eating since December and I have found it has helped my arthritis significantly.
Wheat and Sugar seem to cause the most inflammation for me5 -
Its the best thing that ever happened to me!
70lbs down in 3 months and I feel better than ever
I fast every-other day, I'm pretty much never hungry and always full of energy!
People who say its hard to eat basically have no creativity in the kitchen
I have the most amazing healthy meals each and everyday15 -
guillaro1987 wrote: »Its the best thing that ever happened to me!
70lbs down in 3 months and I feel better than ever
I fast every-other day, I'm pretty much never hungry and always full of energy!
People who say its hard to eat basically have no creativity in the kitchen
I have the most amazing healthy meals each and everyday
LOL I had to laugh at the healthy meals each and every day when half of those days you don't eat.
Either or carry on and congrats on your weight loss to date. Also, don't be afraid to switch things up if you find what's working for you right now stops working -- many find that after a significant weight loss they're hungry. If that happens to you don't go off the deep end eating everything in sight but re-think your diet. Eating every day would be a good place to start! Best wishes for continued success.6 -
Well if he had no meals in a day, every meal he ate that day was healthy. Also every meal he ate that day was unhealthy.AlabasterVerve wrote: »guillaro1987 wrote: »Its the best thing that ever happened to me!
70lbs down in 3 months and I feel better than ever
I fast every-other day, I'm pretty much never hungry and always full of energy!
People who say its hard to eat basically have no creativity in the kitchen
I have the most amazing healthy meals each and everyday
LOL I had to laugh at the healthy meals each and every day when half of those days you don't eat.
Either or carry on and congrats on your weight loss to date. Also, don't be afraid to switch things up if you find what's working for you right now stops working -- many find that after a significant weight loss they're hungry. If that happens to you don't go off the deep end eating everything in sight but re-think your diet. Eating every day would be a good place to start! Best wishes for continued success.
4 -
I lost 75 pounds eating keto. I also gained 15 pounds eating keto. Eating at a deficit matters. When that slips away, nothing works. Knowing your daily energy exertion, knowing your calorie limits, and knowing your daily intake are necessary to lose or maintain. I like keto, it's good food and it's easy to stick to, for me. But as a diet, it still requires restraint and daily tracking.9
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »[/url]
I think you need to elaborate on what you mean because brain cells have a tendency to be, well in the brain. Now if you mean neurons or nerve cells, sure, we have nerves connecting to the various parts of our digestive system.
It is rather a jump to say there's any logical or scientific implication that therefore gut bacteria influence brain processes. Particularly given the whole blood-brain barrier that exists to keep that kind of separation high. I've seen people spout claims of "90% of serotonin exists in your gut" thinking that implies anything about gut bacteria or health influencing depression, despite the fact that serotonin is a molecule too big to cross the blood-brain barrier - the serotonin is there because it acts as a contractile flow signaler, not because needing to blow your guts out is a state of bliss. Signalling hormones fairly repeatedly used across many domains and meanings because they are the ones are simple to produce.
To date, I'm not sure how much research really shows gut bacteria is in anyway causative of health or what we eat, rather than correlative. It is pretty easy to explain why gut bacteria can be correlative with what we eat without assuming it means they're causative.
https://noted.co.nz/health/health/gut-bacteria-the-latest-science-and-how-to-boost-them/?fbclid=IwAR2pnnOREz6VjSsQZjLD_VY-b9fSqUelSv9Nn_YfSu4-Clnpx8WbDj6GvGM#.XMGsz_pouT4.facebook7 -
From Gale's linked article:
"The study found that no matter what diet participants preferred – vegetarian, vegan or omnivore – those who ate more than 30 different types of plants a week (including herbs and spices) had more diverse gut microbiomes than those who ate 10 or fewer types. Numbers in each of those groups were small (about 40), but still statistically significant. There were also differences at less extreme levels, where participants numbered in the thousands.
Knight says the information suggests that if you want to positively reshape your gut bacteria, “you shouldn’t just eat a big plate of broccoli, but rather eat a lot of different kinds of plants, including fruits and spices. In terms of what your microbiome looks like overall, you can be a vegan who eats vegetables or a vegan who mostly eats chips and biscuits. That’s going to have a much bigger effect on the microbiome than sometimes eating meat.”
Greater diversity of gut bacteria has been associated with better gut health, although the mechanisms are still not well understood. Less diversity has been linked to conditions including irritable bowel, diabetes and obesity...."12 -
Does this mean people who have original recipe KFC with the Colonel's 11 herbs and spices are closer to a more more diverse microbiome?From Gale's linked article:
"The study found that no matter what diet participants preferred – vegetarian, vegan or omnivore – those who ate more than 30 different types of plants a week (including herbs and spices) had more diverse gut microbiomes than those who ate 10 or fewer types. Numbers in each of those groups were small (about 40), but still statistically significant. There were also differences at less extreme levels, where participants numbered in the thousands.
Knight says the information suggests that if you want to positively reshape your gut bacteria, “you shouldn’t just eat a big plate of broccoli, but rather eat a lot of different kinds of plants, including fruits and spices. In terms of what your microbiome looks like overall, you can be a vegan who eats vegetables or a vegan who mostly eats chips and biscuits. That’s going to have a much bigger effect on the microbiome than sometimes eating meat.”
Greater diversity of gut bacteria has been associated with better gut health, although the mechanisms are still not well understood. Less diversity has been linked to conditions including irritable bowel, diabetes and obesity...."
16 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Does this mean people who have original recipe KFC with the Colonel's 11 herbs and spices are closer to a more more diverse microbiome?From Gale's linked article:
"The study found that no matter what diet participants preferred – vegetarian, vegan or omnivore – those who ate more than 30 different types of plants a week (including herbs and spices) had more diverse gut microbiomes than those who ate 10 or fewer types. Numbers in each of those groups were small (about 40), but still statistically significant. There were also differences at less extreme levels, where participants numbered in the thousands.
Knight says the information suggests that if you want to positively reshape your gut bacteria, “you shouldn’t just eat a big plate of broccoli, but rather eat a lot of different kinds of plants, including fruits and spices. In terms of what your microbiome looks like overall, you can be a vegan who eats vegetables or a vegan who mostly eats chips and biscuits. That’s going to have a much bigger effect on the microbiome than sometimes eating meat.”
Greater diversity of gut bacteria has been associated with better gut health, although the mechanisms are still not well understood. Less diversity has been linked to conditions including irritable bowel, diabetes and obesity...."
I wondered if others was going to pick up that in relationship to KFC's marketing. For about 5 years on my KETO WOE I have been doing 30+ different types of plants daily. Diversity seems to be key where investing in one's health or 401K. I learned about the importance of plants and health from studying anti cancer protocols from around the world over the past 20 years but it was only after I cut out foods containing added sugars and or any form of any grain that I got really serious about longevity related eating factors. Health without eating many types of plants is not in the cards for some of us if not all.14 -
I suspect de minimis amounts may not be sufficient.4
-
-
??1
-
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »[/url]
I think you need to elaborate on what you mean because brain cells have a tendency to be, well in the brain. Now if you mean neurons or nerve cells, sure, we have nerves connecting to the various parts of our digestive system.
It is rather a jump to say there's any logical or scientific implication that therefore gut bacteria influence brain processes. Particularly given the whole blood-brain barrier that exists to keep that kind of separation high. I've seen people spout claims of "90% of serotonin exists in your gut" thinking that implies anything about gut bacteria or health influencing depression, despite the fact that serotonin is a molecule too big to cross the blood-brain barrier - the serotonin is there because it acts as a contractile flow signaler, not because needing to blow your guts out is a state of bliss. Signalling hormones fairly repeatedly used across many domains and meanings because they are the ones are simple to produce.
To date, I'm not sure how much research really shows gut bacteria is in anyway causative of health or what we eat, rather than correlative. It is pretty easy to explain why gut bacteria can be correlative with what we eat without assuming it means they're causative.
https://noted.co.nz/health/health/gut-bacteria-the-latest-science-and-how-to-boost-them/?fbclid=IwAR2pnnOREz6VjSsQZjLD_VY-b9fSqUelSv9Nn_YfSu4-Clnpx8WbDj6GvGM#.XMGsz_pouT4.facebook
This article says nothing supporting your claims about " gut flora driving carb binges" or the claim of "10% of human brain cells existing between our front door and back door"
So instead of Gish galloping around, how about addressing the aforementioned points? Or just admit that you don't know what you're talking about.9 -
WinoGelato wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »For me, any diet that severely restricts a complete food group just can't be sustainable.
Humans are meant to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables....all of which have carbs.
I also don't think it would work long-term because at some point you would eventually go off the diet, and just gain all the weight back. Or continue on the diet forever, and you would be deficient in a lot of the vitamins and minerals and fiber that come in those foods you have to eliminate to do keto.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.
Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.
They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.
Yeah, you're quoting the botanical sense of what makes something a fruit. I'm well aware of that, which is why I qualified: in the nutritional sense.
See, saying a tomato, and particularly a cucumber are fruits isn't going to work in the nutritional sense - you'd get odd looks making a tomato and cucumber fruit salad.
An even stronger break is when you look at mushrooms - there is no "fungus" category in almost a food / nutrition categorizing system, so they'll be classed as vegetables. But I don't think I would get any odd looks at all to say "here's a vegetable blend" and it includes mushrooms.
As far as vegetables and grasses for health, well it seems you're now placing an overly exacting definition on what is evidence - that's what you said you weren't aware of before. As you're now saying a study (I think you mean more specifically an RCT or at least CT) with replacement. There are epidemiological studies that show people eating a fair amount of whole grains are healthier than other diets, even diets higher in animal products. My recollection is there is a rather large and significant effect for health outcomes for people eating an average of 400 grams or greater a day of vegetables (it may include fruit in that).
I'm just choosing the correct use of the terms. Some don't, usually from never learning that.
I would be interested to read any study that shows replacing animal products (I'm thinking of whole foods here - for both sides) with grains, or even vegetables, is healthier. I've never found one.
I believe there is a spectrum of nutrition when it comes to food. Some foods are healthier than others. It doesn't mean that the unhealthy foods can't be eaten, or even that they will cause harm to every one (it will not). I do think that they foods that people hold up as the pinnacle of health is based on very little good science and more on dogma. It's unfortunate.
Sounds like your claim is that a diet of mostly or exclusively animal products is healthier than a vegetarian or vegan diet; and potentially is healthier than one that includes all food inclusive of animals, grains, fruits and vegetables. Or are you just staying there is no study supporting the converse of this, that a diet that includes grains and vegetables is “healthier” than a diet which prohibits them and promotes a high consumption of animal products?
If this is your claim or belief - what constitutes “healthier”? What would be the parameters that would define the framework of such a study?
And I’m speaking specifically for the average person who does not have medical reasons (as you do) to limit carbohydrates and grains. What would make one diet “healthier” than another, in your opinion?
I do believe that.
A diet of just animal products vs a diet of just plant products, no supplementation.... plant diets will have deficiencies.
I am not saying people should avoid vegan or vegetarian diets, nor that they can be healthy when supplemented and based on whole foods- i believe processed and highly refined carbs are not nutritious foods. I also think all animal diets can be done less healthfully, like basing a diet on ham, bacon and porkrinds.
And yes, I believe that replacing grains with meat is a healthier option. I also believe that replacing grains with whole vege and some fruits is a healthier option.
Studies saying that grains are healthy are relative. Healthier than what? Healthier than highly processed and refined grains or sugars? Sure. Healthier than starvation? Rice or corn or oatmeal healthier than the same calories in steak or fish or eggs? I've made my choices. Ymmv15 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »For me, any diet that severely restricts a complete food group just can't be sustainable.
Humans are meant to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables....all of which have carbs.
I also don't think it would work long-term because at some point you would eventually go off the diet, and just gain all the weight back. Or continue on the diet forever, and you would be deficient in a lot of the vitamins and minerals and fiber that come in those foods you have to eliminate to do keto.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.
Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.
They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.
Yeah, you're quoting the botanical sense of what makes something a fruit. I'm well aware of that, which is why I qualified: in the nutritional sense.
See, saying a tomato, and particularly a cucumber are fruits isn't going to work in the nutritional sense - you'd get odd looks making a tomato and cucumber fruit salad.
An even stronger break is when you look at mushrooms - there is no "fungus" category in almost a food / nutrition categorizing system, so they'll be classed as vegetables. But I don't think I would get any odd looks at all to say "here's a vegetable blend" and it includes mushrooms.
As far as vegetables and grasses for health, well it seems you're now placing an overly exacting definition on what is evidence - that's what you said you weren't aware of before. As you're now saying a study (I think you mean more specifically an RCT or at least CT) with replacement. There are epidemiological studies that show people eating a fair amount of whole grains are healthier than other diets, even diets higher in animal products. My recollection is there is a rather large and significant effect for health outcomes for people eating an average of 400 grams or greater a day of vegetables (it may include fruit in that).
I'm just choosing the correct use of the terms. Some don't, usually from never learning that.
I would be interested to read any study that shows replacing animal products (I'm thinking of whole foods here - for both sides) with grains, or even vegetables, is healthier. I've never found one.
I believe there is a spectrum of nutrition when it comes to food. Some foods are healthier than others. It doesn't mean that the unhealthy foods can't be eaten, or even that they will cause harm to every one (it will not). I do think that they foods that people hold up as the pinnacle of health is based on very little good science and more on dogma. It's unfortunate.
The biggest issue is that you severely limit the scope of what a study can have, which makes it impossible to demonstrate. And even if there was such a study, you would immediate discredit it. There are absolutely studies that show replacing SFA with whole grains (including cereals) and fibrous plant based foods provide improved health but have yet to see any study replacing meat with fibrous foods.
Could you share it?1 -
snowflake954 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »For me, any diet that severely restricts a complete food group just can't be sustainable.
Humans are meant to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables....all of which have carbs.
I also don't think it would work long-term because at some point you would eventually go off the diet, and just gain all the weight back. Or continue on the diet forever, and you would be deficient in a lot of the vitamins and minerals and fiber that come in those foods you have to eliminate to do keto.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.
Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.
They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.
Yeah, you're quoting the botanical sense of what makes something a fruit. I'm well aware of that, which is why I qualified: in the nutritional sense.
See, saying a tomato, and particularly a cucumber are fruits isn't going to work in the nutritional sense - you'd get odd looks making a tomato and cucumber fruit salad.
An even stronger break is when you look at mushrooms - there is no "fungus" category in almost a food / nutrition categorizing system, so they'll be classed as vegetables. But I don't think I would get any odd looks at all to say "here's a vegetable blend" and it includes mushrooms.
As far as vegetables and grasses for health, well it seems you're now placing an overly exacting definition on what is evidence - that's what you said you weren't aware of before. As you're now saying a study (I think you mean more specifically an RCT or at least CT) with replacement. There are epidemiological studies that show people eating a fair amount of whole grains are healthier than other diets, even diets higher in animal products. My recollection is there is a rather large and significant effect for health outcomes for people eating an average of 400 grams or greater a day of vegetables (it may include fruit in that).
I'm just choosing the correct use of the terms. Some don't, usually from never learning that.
I would be interested to read any study that shows replacing animal products (I'm thinking of whole foods here - for both sides) with grains, or even vegetables, is healthier. I've never found one.
I believe there is a spectrum of nutrition when it comes to food. Some foods are healthier than others. It doesn't mean that the unhealthy foods can't be eaten, or even that they will cause harm to every one (it will not). I do think that they foods that people hold up as the pinnacle of health is based on very little good science and more on dogma. It's unfortunate.
Please reread your last sentence--irony.
It's unfortunate?
Or are you saying there us a "dogma" supporting the idea that plant based diets are not ideal? Dogma means ideas laid down by an authority that they consider to unarguably true. I know if no authorities stating that. Most organizations are currently pushing plant based diets over ketogenic or animal based diets based on very little data or data based on poor science.
Was it McGovern who said policy makers did not have the luxury of time, unlike research science?8 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »For me, any diet that severely restricts a complete food group just can't be sustainable.
Humans are meant to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables....all of which have carbs.
I also don't think it would work long-term because at some point you would eventually go off the diet, and just gain all the weight back. Or continue on the diet forever, and you would be deficient in a lot of the vitamins and minerals and fiber that come in those foods you have to eliminate to do keto.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.
Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.
They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.
Yeah, you're quoting the botanical sense of what makes something a fruit. I'm well aware of that, which is why I qualified: in the nutritional sense.
See, saying a tomato, and particularly a cucumber are fruits isn't going to work in the nutritional sense - you'd get odd looks making a tomato and cucumber fruit salad.
An even stronger break is when you look at mushrooms - there is no "fungus" category in almost a food / nutrition categorizing system, so they'll be classed as vegetables. But I don't think I would get any odd looks at all to say "here's a vegetable blend" and it includes mushrooms.
As far as vegetables and grasses for health, well it seems you're now placing an overly exacting definition on what is evidence - that's what you said you weren't aware of before. As you're now saying a study (I think you mean more specifically an RCT or at least CT) with replacement. There are epidemiological studies that show people eating a fair amount of whole grains are healthier than other diets, even diets higher in animal products. My recollection is there is a rather large and significant effect for health outcomes for people eating an average of 400 grams or greater a day of vegetables (it may include fruit in that).
I'm just choosing the correct use of the terms. Some don't, usually from never learning that.
I would be interested to read any study that shows replacing animal products (I'm thinking of whole foods here - for both sides) with grains, or even vegetables, is healthier. I've never found one.
I believe there is a spectrum of nutrition when it comes to food. Some foods are healthier than others. It doesn't mean that the unhealthy foods can't be eaten, or even that they will cause harm to every one (it will not). I do think that they foods that people hold up as the pinnacle of health is based on very little good science and more on dogma. It's unfortunate.
The correct use of a term? There's an objectively correct use of terms outside of a context? I've always been of the impression that language is usage, but if you know of some other way a term can be objectively correctly, I'd be interested what particular in reality makes that work. It will also be great to finally tell all those people not speaking English they're using the wrong language.
Seriously consider my example of mushrooms. In nutrition, people usually talk of foods as being grains, vegetables, fruits, meats/proteins, and dairy. Does a mushroom technically fit any of those categories? Are people wrong when they put it in the vegetable category - biologically it is closer to meat.
As far as studies, would you consider RCT's for DASH or Mediterranean diets applicable? Is there a particular method you consider health, or do you accept the general markers used in health outcome predictions?
My take on it would be there are foods that could be said to be better at societal level, such as formulating dietary guidelines, but for the individual, there can be no a priori claim of a healthy food. Not even getting into obvious things like someone may have an allergy, what is healthy is going to be a product of current health status and intended goals - whole foods are actually probably the worst thing for someone that's been starved for an extended period for time for example, while high calorie "junk" food is possibly the best thing for such a person.
I'm not interested in arguing correct language usage.
Mushrooms are a funny case. I know of a few carnivores who eat them because, unlike plants, they dont cause them problems . I eat them on occasion too. I would put them in the fungi category.
I think there was one 2 week study on the dash diet. It is pretty light on science although not completely lacking. Mediterranean is not definitive either, although it appears to have many healthful foods.
I think there should be no guidelines at all until the science is definitive. So far, limiting highly processed and refined carbs, including when combined with fats, and avoiding trans fats seems to be closest ideas to reaching a consensus.5 -
sammidelvecchio wrote: »
I do drift out of ketosis for 36-48 hours a few times a month when I do carb refeeds without any major issues. However I do notice a bit of flareup in my lower back and hips due to arthritis and my lower back being fused.
I've always wondered if I was crazy when I began associating high carb intake with arthritis flares. I have other things that cause them too, but no one ever took me seriously. I've used "carb conscious" eating since December and I have found it has helped my arthritis significantly.
That's one of the main reasons that I limit carbs.2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »For me, any diet that severely restricts a complete food group just can't be sustainable.
Humans are meant to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables....all of which have carbs.
I also don't think it would work long-term because at some point you would eventually go off the diet, and just gain all the weight back. Or continue on the diet forever, and you would be deficient in a lot of the vitamins and minerals and fiber that come in those foods you have to eliminate to do keto.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.
Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.
They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.
Yeah, you're quoting the botanical sense of what makes something a fruit. I'm well aware of that, which is why I qualified: in the nutritional sense.
See, saying a tomato, and particularly a cucumber are fruits isn't going to work in the nutritional sense - you'd get odd looks making a tomato and cucumber fruit salad.
An even stronger break is when you look at mushrooms - there is no "fungus" category in almost a food / nutrition categorizing system, so they'll be classed as vegetables. But I don't think I would get any odd looks at all to say "here's a vegetable blend" and it includes mushrooms.
As far as vegetables and grasses for health, well it seems you're now placing an overly exacting definition on what is evidence - that's what you said you weren't aware of before. As you're now saying a study (I think you mean more specifically an RCT or at least CT) with replacement. There are epidemiological studies that show people eating a fair amount of whole grains are healthier than other diets, even diets higher in animal products. My recollection is there is a rather large and significant effect for health outcomes for people eating an average of 400 grams or greater a day of vegetables (it may include fruit in that).
I'm just choosing the correct use of the terms. Some don't, usually from never learning that.
I would be interested to read any study that shows replacing animal products (I'm thinking of whole foods here - for both sides) with grains, or even vegetables, is healthier. I've never found one.
I believe there is a spectrum of nutrition when it comes to food. Some foods are healthier than others. It doesn't mean that the unhealthy foods can't be eaten, or even that they will cause harm to every one (it will not). I do think that they foods that people hold up as the pinnacle of health is based on very little good science and more on dogma. It's unfortunate.
The biggest issue is that you severely limit the scope of what a study can have, which makes it impossible to demonstrate. And even if there was such a study, you would immediate discredit it. There are absolutely studies that show replacing SFA with whole grains (including cereals) and fibrous plant based foods provide improved health but have yet to see any study replacing meat with fibrous foods.
Could you share it?
We already had this discussion in the last thread. The studies you posted showed that replacing SFA with whole grains and fibrous foods improved health. You immediately didn't agree because it didn't align to your biases and personal experience.
Currently, your beliefs are just that. There is no evidence suggesting more meat is better. There is evidence that replacing SFA with plant based foods improve health.
If you really are interested, than look at the other thread and go back like six pages. The 3 studies you posted don't support your views.21 -
WinoGelato wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »For me, any diet that severely restricts a complete food group just can't be sustainable.
Humans are meant to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables....all of which have carbs.
I also don't think it would work long-term because at some point you would eventually go off the diet, and just gain all the weight back. Or continue on the diet forever, and you would be deficient in a lot of the vitamins and minerals and fiber that come in those foods you have to eliminate to do keto.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.
Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.
They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.
Yeah, you're quoting the botanical sense of what makes something a fruit. I'm well aware of that, which is why I qualified: in the nutritional sense.
See, saying a tomato, and particularly a cucumber are fruits isn't going to work in the nutritional sense - you'd get odd looks making a tomato and cucumber fruit salad.
An even stronger break is when you look at mushrooms - there is no "fungus" category in almost a food / nutrition categorizing system, so they'll be classed as vegetables. But I don't think I would get any odd looks at all to say "here's a vegetable blend" and it includes mushrooms.
As far as vegetables and grasses for health, well it seems you're now placing an overly exacting definition on what is evidence - that's what you said you weren't aware of before. As you're now saying a study (I think you mean more specifically an RCT or at least CT) with replacement. There are epidemiological studies that show people eating a fair amount of whole grains are healthier than other diets, even diets higher in animal products. My recollection is there is a rather large and significant effect for health outcomes for people eating an average of 400 grams or greater a day of vegetables (it may include fruit in that).
I'm just choosing the correct use of the terms. Some don't, usually from never learning that.
I would be interested to read any study that shows replacing animal products (I'm thinking of whole foods here - for both sides) with grains, or even vegetables, is healthier. I've never found one.
I believe there is a spectrum of nutrition when it comes to food. Some foods are healthier than others. It doesn't mean that the unhealthy foods can't be eaten, or even that they will cause harm to every one (it will not). I do think that they foods that people hold up as the pinnacle of health is based on very little good science and more on dogma. It's unfortunate.
Sounds like your claim is that a diet of mostly or exclusively animal products is healthier than a vegetarian or vegan diet; and potentially is healthier than one that includes all food inclusive of animals, grains, fruits and vegetables. Or are you just staying there is no study supporting the converse of this, that a diet that includes grains and vegetables is “healthier” than a diet which prohibits them and promotes a high consumption of animal products?
If this is your claim or belief - what constitutes “healthier”? What would be the parameters that would define the framework of such a study?
And I’m speaking specifically for the average person who does not have medical reasons (as you do) to limit carbohydrates and grains. What would make one diet “healthier” than another, in your opinion?
I do believe that.
A diet of just animal products vs a diet of just plant products, no supplementation.... plant diets will have deficiencies.
I am not saying people should avoid vegan or vegetarian diets, nor that they can be healthy when supplemented and based on whole foods- i believe processed and highly refined carbs are not nutritious foods. I also think all animal diets can be done less healthfully, like basing a diet on ham, bacon and porkrinds.
And yes, I believe that replacing grains with meat is a healthier option. I also believe that replacing grains with whole vege and some fruits is a healthier option.
Studies saying that grains are healthy are relative. Healthier than what? Healthier than highly processed and refined grains or sugars? Sure. Healthier than starvation? Rice or corn or oatmeal healthier than the same calories in steak or fish or eggs? I've made my choices. Ymmv
They say plant based foods are healthier than SFAs. They also say that fish and seafood are healthier than meat.
Its why the blue zones are so well regarded when it comes to health and wellness. They eat lots of plant based foods, fish and are active, with little processed foods and and red meats.11 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »For me, any diet that severely restricts a complete food group just can't be sustainable.
Humans are meant to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables....all of which have carbs.
I also don't think it would work long-term because at some point you would eventually go off the diet, and just gain all the weight back. Or continue on the diet forever, and you would be deficient in a lot of the vitamins and minerals and fiber that come in those foods you have to eliminate to do keto.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.
Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.
They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.
Yeah, you're quoting the botanical sense of what makes something a fruit. I'm well aware of that, which is why I qualified: in the nutritional sense.
See, saying a tomato, and particularly a cucumber are fruits isn't going to work in the nutritional sense - you'd get odd looks making a tomato and cucumber fruit salad.
An even stronger break is when you look at mushrooms - there is no "fungus" category in almost a food / nutrition categorizing system, so they'll be classed as vegetables. But I don't think I would get any odd looks at all to say "here's a vegetable blend" and it includes mushrooms.
As far as vegetables and grasses for health, well it seems you're now placing an overly exacting definition on what is evidence - that's what you said you weren't aware of before. As you're now saying a study (I think you mean more specifically an RCT or at least CT) with replacement. There are epidemiological studies that show people eating a fair amount of whole grains are healthier than other diets, even diets higher in animal products. My recollection is there is a rather large and significant effect for health outcomes for people eating an average of 400 grams or greater a day of vegetables (it may include fruit in that).
I'm just choosing the correct use of the terms. Some don't, usually from never learning that.
I would be interested to read any study that shows replacing animal products (I'm thinking of whole foods here - for both sides) with grains, or even vegetables, is healthier. I've never found one.
I believe there is a spectrum of nutrition when it comes to food. Some foods are healthier than others. It doesn't mean that the unhealthy foods can't be eaten, or even that they will cause harm to every one (it will not). I do think that they foods that people hold up as the pinnacle of health is based on very little good science and more on dogma. It's unfortunate.
The biggest issue is that you severely limit the scope of what a study can have, which makes it impossible to demonstrate. And even if there was such a study, you would immediate discredit it. There are absolutely studies that show replacing SFA with whole grains (including cereals) and fibrous plant based foods provide improved health but have yet to see any study replacing meat with fibrous foods.
Could you share it?
We already had this discussion in the last thread. The studies you posted showed that replacing SFA with whole grains and fibrous foods improved health. You immediately didn't agree because it didn't align to your biases and personal experience.
Currently, your beliefs are just that. There is no evidence suggesting more meat is better. There is evidence that replacing SFA with plant based foods improve health.
If you really are interested, than look at the other thread and go back like six pages. The 3 studies you posted don't support your views.
You keep saying "replacing SFA with whole grains". I said it is healthier to replace it with animal products, which have a variety of fats in them. I believe pig fat, that cons with my pork chop, is more unsaturated fats than anything.
Dont replace grains with SFA. That would be ridiculous. Replace it with meat, fish, eggs and some dairy (if you tolerate it).5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »For me, any diet that severely restricts a complete food group just can't be sustainable.
Humans are meant to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables....all of which have carbs.
I also don't think it would work long-term because at some point you would eventually go off the diet, and just gain all the weight back. Or continue on the diet forever, and you would be deficient in a lot of the vitamins and minerals and fiber that come in those foods you have to eliminate to do keto.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.
Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.
They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.
Yeah, you're quoting the botanical sense of what makes something a fruit. I'm well aware of that, which is why I qualified: in the nutritional sense.
See, saying a tomato, and particularly a cucumber are fruits isn't going to work in the nutritional sense - you'd get odd looks making a tomato and cucumber fruit salad.
An even stronger break is when you look at mushrooms - there is no "fungus" category in almost a food / nutrition categorizing system, so they'll be classed as vegetables. But I don't think I would get any odd looks at all to say "here's a vegetable blend" and it includes mushrooms.
As far as vegetables and grasses for health, well it seems you're now placing an overly exacting definition on what is evidence - that's what you said you weren't aware of before. As you're now saying a study (I think you mean more specifically an RCT or at least CT) with replacement. There are epidemiological studies that show people eating a fair amount of whole grains are healthier than other diets, even diets higher in animal products. My recollection is there is a rather large and significant effect for health outcomes for people eating an average of 400 grams or greater a day of vegetables (it may include fruit in that).
I'm just choosing the correct use of the terms. Some don't, usually from never learning that.
I would be interested to read any study that shows replacing animal products (I'm thinking of whole foods here - for both sides) with grains, or even vegetables, is healthier. I've never found one.
I believe there is a spectrum of nutrition when it comes to food. Some foods are healthier than others. It doesn't mean that the unhealthy foods can't be eaten, or even that they will cause harm to every one (it will not). I do think that they foods that people hold up as the pinnacle of health is based on very little good science and more on dogma. It's unfortunate.
Sounds like your claim is that a diet of mostly or exclusively animal products is healthier than a vegetarian or vegan diet; and potentially is healthier than one that includes all food inclusive of animals, grains, fruits and vegetables. Or are you just staying there is no study supporting the converse of this, that a diet that includes grains and vegetables is “healthier” than a diet which prohibits them and promotes a high consumption of animal products?
If this is your claim or belief - what constitutes “healthier”? What would be the parameters that would define the framework of such a study?
And I’m speaking specifically for the average person who does not have medical reasons (as you do) to limit carbohydrates and grains. What would make one diet “healthier” than another, in your opinion?
I do believe that.
A diet of just animal products vs a diet of just plant products, no supplementation.... plant diets will have deficiencies.
I am not saying people should avoid vegan or vegetarian diets, nor that they can be healthy when supplemented and based on whole foods- i believe processed and highly refined carbs are not nutritious foods. I also think all animal diets can be done less healthfully, like basing a diet on ham, bacon and porkrinds.
And yes, I believe that replacing grains with meat is a healthier option. I also believe that replacing grains with whole vege and some fruits is a healthier option.
Studies saying that grains are healthy are relative. Healthier than what? Healthier than highly processed and refined grains or sugars? Sure. Healthier than starvation? Rice or corn or oatmeal healthier than the same calories in steak or fish or eggs? I've made my choices. Ymmv
They say plant based foods are healthier than SFAs. They also say that fish and seafood are healthier than meat.
Its why the blue zones are so well regarded when it comes to health and wellness. They eat lots of plant based foods, fish and are active, with little processed foods and and red meats.
It is only here, on mfp, that I hear about the blue zones over and over. Yes, the okinawans eat lots if sweet potato and live long, they especially ate more sweet potato, and less pork, after wwii caused pig shortages. But then look to Hong Kong where, they live longer than the Japanese and yet they have one of the highest rates of meat consumption in the world - I heard it is around 20oz of meat a day.
I did not say plants are all unhealthy. I said animal products are more nutritious.
And yes, fish (an animal product) is very healthy. I would eat more if it if I was not living in a land locked prairie.
I agree that eating just SFA is not an ideal "food". Good thing that people dont do that....7 -
WinoGelato wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »For me, any diet that severely restricts a complete food group just can't be sustainable.
Humans are meant to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables....all of which have carbs.
I also don't think it would work long-term because at some point you would eventually go off the diet, and just gain all the weight back. Or continue on the diet forever, and you would be deficient in a lot of the vitamins and minerals and fiber that come in those foods you have to eliminate to do keto.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.
Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.
They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.
Yeah, you're quoting the botanical sense of what makes something a fruit. I'm well aware of that, which is why I qualified: in the nutritional sense.
See, saying a tomato, and particularly a cucumber are fruits isn't going to work in the nutritional sense - you'd get odd looks making a tomato and cucumber fruit salad.
An even stronger break is when you look at mushrooms - there is no "fungus" category in almost a food / nutrition categorizing system, so they'll be classed as vegetables. But I don't think I would get any odd looks at all to say "here's a vegetable blend" and it includes mushrooms.
As far as vegetables and grasses for health, well it seems you're now placing an overly exacting definition on what is evidence - that's what you said you weren't aware of before. As you're now saying a study (I think you mean more specifically an RCT or at least CT) with replacement. There are epidemiological studies that show people eating a fair amount of whole grains are healthier than other diets, even diets higher in animal products. My recollection is there is a rather large and significant effect for health outcomes for people eating an average of 400 grams or greater a day of vegetables (it may include fruit in that).
I'm just choosing the correct use of the terms. Some don't, usually from never learning that.
I would be interested to read any study that shows replacing animal products (I'm thinking of whole foods here - for both sides) with grains, or even vegetables, is healthier. I've never found one.
I believe there is a spectrum of nutrition when it comes to food. Some foods are healthier than others. It doesn't mean that the unhealthy foods can't be eaten, or even that they will cause harm to every one (it will not). I do think that they foods that people hold up as the pinnacle of health is based on very little good science and more on dogma. It's unfortunate.
Sounds like your claim is that a diet of mostly or exclusively animal products is healthier than a vegetarian or vegan diet; and potentially is healthier than one that includes all food inclusive of animals, grains, fruits and vegetables. Or are you just staying there is no study supporting the converse of this, that a diet that includes grains and vegetables is “healthier” than a diet which prohibits them and promotes a high consumption of animal products?
If this is your claim or belief - what constitutes “healthier”? What would be the parameters that would define the framework of such a study?
And I’m speaking specifically for the average person who does not have medical reasons (as you do) to limit carbohydrates and grains. What would make one diet “healthier” than another, in your opinion?
I do believe that.
A diet of just animal products vs a diet of just plant products, no supplementation.... plant diets will have deficiencies.
I am not saying people should avoid vegan or vegetarian diets, nor that they can be healthy when supplemented and based on whole foods- i believe processed and highly refined carbs are not nutritious foods. I also think all animal diets can be done less healthfully, like basing a diet on ham, bacon and porkrinds.
And yes, I believe that replacing grains with meat is a healthier option. I also believe that replacing grains with whole vege and some fruits is a healthier option.
Studies saying that grains are healthy are relative. Healthier than what? Healthier than highly processed and refined grains or sugars? Sure. Healthier than starvation? Rice or corn or oatmeal healthier than the same calories in steak or fish or eggs? I've made my choices. Ymmv
So a diet of nothing but meat is healthier than a vegetarian diet that would include a variety of potential sources for protein, fiber, healthy fats, etc?
And my second question was do you believe a diet of all meat is healthier than a diet where a person does not restrict any macro nutrient or type of food. Where a person could eat meat, fish, grains, fruits vegetables, dairy, etc?
It really sounds like you believe grains in particular, are a negative contributor to health. And again, I’m not talking about for you as I recall you being Celiac, but for the average person. You think the piece of whole wheat toast with peanut butter that I have for breakfast sometimes is damaging my health? Or that I would be “healthier” if I chose meat instead? And again, how would one measure the “healthiness” of a particular food?9 -
And in the all animal vs a diet that includes grains and vegetables, don’t forget to make sure to mention that the all animal diet would need to include organ meats in order to get all the nutrients available in plants...11
-
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »For me, any diet that severely restricts a complete food group just can't be sustainable.
Humans are meant to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables....all of which have carbs.
I also don't think it would work long-term because at some point you would eventually go off the diet, and just gain all the weight back. Or continue on the diet forever, and you would be deficient in a lot of the vitamins and minerals and fiber that come in those foods you have to eliminate to do keto.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.
Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.
They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.
Yeah, you're quoting the botanical sense of what makes something a fruit. I'm well aware of that, which is why I qualified: in the nutritional sense.
See, saying a tomato, and particularly a cucumber are fruits isn't going to work in the nutritional sense - you'd get odd looks making a tomato and cucumber fruit salad.
An even stronger break is when you look at mushrooms - there is no "fungus" category in almost a food / nutrition categorizing system, so they'll be classed as vegetables. But I don't think I would get any odd looks at all to say "here's a vegetable blend" and it includes mushrooms.
As far as vegetables and grasses for health, well it seems you're now placing an overly exacting definition on what is evidence - that's what you said you weren't aware of before. As you're now saying a study (I think you mean more specifically an RCT or at least CT) with replacement. There are epidemiological studies that show people eating a fair amount of whole grains are healthier than other diets, even diets higher in animal products. My recollection is there is a rather large and significant effect for health outcomes for people eating an average of 400 grams or greater a day of vegetables (it may include fruit in that).
I'm just choosing the correct use of the terms. Some don't, usually from never learning that.
I would be interested to read any study that shows replacing animal products (I'm thinking of whole foods here - for both sides) with grains, or even vegetables, is healthier. I've never found one.
I believe there is a spectrum of nutrition when it comes to food. Some foods are healthier than others. It doesn't mean that the unhealthy foods can't be eaten, or even that they will cause harm to every one (it will not). I do think that they foods that people hold up as the pinnacle of health is based on very little good science and more on dogma. It's unfortunate.
Sounds like your claim is that a diet of mostly or exclusively animal products is healthier than a vegetarian or vegan diet; and potentially is healthier than one that includes all food inclusive of animals, grains, fruits and vegetables. Or are you just staying there is no study supporting the converse of this, that a diet that includes grains and vegetables is “healthier” than a diet which prohibits them and promotes a high consumption of animal products?
If this is your claim or belief - what constitutes “healthier”? What would be the parameters that would define the framework of such a study?
And I’m speaking specifically for the average person who does not have medical reasons (as you do) to limit carbohydrates and grains. What would make one diet “healthier” than another, in your opinion?
I do believe that.
A diet of just animal products vs a diet of just plant products, no supplementation.... plant diets will have deficiencies.
I am not saying people should avoid vegan or vegetarian diets, nor that they can be healthy when supplemented and based on whole foods- i believe processed and highly refined carbs are not nutritious foods. I also think all animal diets can be done less healthfully, like basing a diet on ham, bacon and porkrinds.
And yes, I believe that replacing grains with meat is a healthier option. I also believe that replacing grains with whole vege and some fruits is a healthier option.
Studies saying that grains are healthy are relative. Healthier than what? Healthier than highly processed and refined grains or sugars? Sure. Healthier than starvation? Rice or corn or oatmeal healthier than the same calories in steak or fish or eggs? I've made my choices. Ymmv
So a diet of nothing but meat is healthier than a vegetarian diet that would include a variety of potential sources for protein, fiber, healthy fats, etc?
A diet of animal products (which includes fish, shellfish, eggs, dairy if tolerated AND meat) is healthier than just plants.
Animal diets have variety too. Today I had eggs, pork, shellfish, cheese and plan on beef for dinner. Less variety in animal products is needed than if you are just eating plants.And my second question was do you believe a diet of all meat is healthier than a diet where a person does not restrict any macro nutrient or type of food. Where a person could eat meat, fish, grains, fruits vegetables, dairy, etc?
It really sounds like you believe grains in particular, are a negative contributor to health. And again, I’m not talking about for you as I recall you being Celiac, but for the average person. You think the piece of whole wheat toast with peanut butter that I have for breakfast sometimes is damaging my health? Or that I would be “healthier” if I chose meat instead? And again, how would one measure the “healthiness” of a particular food?
I believe sugar and grains, especially highly processed and refined forms, should be restricted. Possibly the very sugary fruits too. So I guess my answer is yes. I think an all animal diet (but not just meat) is healthier than a diet with unrestricted grains and sugars.
As to you PB and toast example, in my home I encourage skipping the bread and eating PB on celery or with a large spoon. I think fortifications/suplements are needed to call bread a nutritious food. It is not a bad food, but it is not as nutritious as animal products... or PB
The " healthiness" is judged by the fact that if one eats only plants, without supplementing, they would lack vitamins and nutrients, and possibly protein if they did not plan well, and over time their health would suffer. Good planning and supplementation is needed to avoid this. Successful vegans plan well and create more healthful diets.
If eating only animal products, this is not a concern unless one lives off of pork rinds.
21 -
WinoGelato wrote: »And in the all animal vs a diet that includes grains and vegetables, don’t forget to make sure to mention that the all animal diet would need to include organ meats in order to get all the nutrients available in plants...
No, they would not need to eat organ meat. Organ meat is definitely very nutritious but muscle meat and marrow have all those nutrients that are needed.8 -
Fair enough, I don't care for arguing what is correct language either, as I don't see there being such a thing. That's why I can say things "in the nutritional sense" to reference how people tend to use a term in a context over what is an agreed upon terminology in botany.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »For me, any diet that severely restricts a complete food group just can't be sustainable.
Humans are meant to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables....all of which have carbs.
I also don't think it would work long-term because at some point you would eventually go off the diet, and just gain all the weight back. Or continue on the diet forever, and you would be deficient in a lot of the vitamins and minerals and fiber that come in those foods you have to eliminate to do keto.
There are some errors in this.
Is is sustainable to restrict carbs - a non essential macronutrient. Some prefer not to, and few seem to have problems using fat for fuel for some reason.
There is no evidence that humans are meant to eat grains and veggies. Fruit is meant to be eaten but perhaps not by people in their current hybridized forms.
Almost all diets fail long term. Most people do stop their diets. For keto, i believe the virta study shows over an 80% continuation with the diet past 2 years. I've been keto over 4 years. I do have days I don't eat yo my diet, like any diet, but I've used it for longer than most people can maintain a weight loss.
I'm just wondering if maybe you and the quoted person are just using meant in a different sense? If one were to say there was no evidence of modern humans having an evolutionary history (what I would take meant as meaning in context) that included eating grains, I'd say the person is misinformed.
Now if meant were being used as diets having some inherent purpose and meaning, well now that would be odd to me, but sure, we don't have anything we're meant to eat - to me a person has to create their meaning. Usually though, I'd take it that people have some desire for either hedonic pleasure of eating, increasing certain physical traits we'd tend to call health, or maximizing life span. I think we also have at least some evidence grains and vegetables being involved in that.
Though I'd admit, I don't feel I have a solid principle for what makes something a fruit and something a vegetable in a nutritional sense.
Fruits have seeds in them an come from the flowers of plants. Technically speaking, legumes, nuts, cucumbers, peppers, squash, olives, avocados, as well as the usual berries, apples, bananas, melons, etc.... as I understand it. Humans may be some of the animals that eat those seed bearing foods.
Vegetables are stems, leaves, stalks, and storage parts of plants like celery, carrots, mustard plants and their hybrids. They tend to have more defenses and the plants are damaged by being eaten. While some are nutritious, others seem to be able to do some harm to people. TBH I have never seen a study that shows vegetables, or grass seeds, improve a diet by replacing animal products or naturally occurring fruits (not the larger, sweeter hybridized varieties). It's by far a better food choice than highly refined and processed foods, imo.
They do taste good though. I love cakes, sugars, and some root vegetables. Vegetable fruits are my favourite - love snap peas.
Yeah, you're quoting the botanical sense of what makes something a fruit. I'm well aware of that, which is why I qualified: in the nutritional sense.
See, saying a tomato, and particularly a cucumber are fruits isn't going to work in the nutritional sense - you'd get odd looks making a tomato and cucumber fruit salad.
An even stronger break is when you look at mushrooms - there is no "fungus" category in almost a food / nutrition categorizing system, so they'll be classed as vegetables. But I don't think I would get any odd looks at all to say "here's a vegetable blend" and it includes mushrooms.
As far as vegetables and grasses for health, well it seems you're now placing an overly exacting definition on what is evidence - that's what you said you weren't aware of before. As you're now saying a study (I think you mean more specifically an RCT or at least CT) with replacement. There are epidemiological studies that show people eating a fair amount of whole grains are healthier than other diets, even diets higher in animal products. My recollection is there is a rather large and significant effect for health outcomes for people eating an average of 400 grams or greater a day of vegetables (it may include fruit in that).
I'm just choosing the correct use of the terms. Some don't, usually from never learning that.
I would be interested to read any study that shows replacing animal products (I'm thinking of whole foods here - for both sides) with grains, or even vegetables, is healthier. I've never found one.
I believe there is a spectrum of nutrition when it comes to food. Some foods are healthier than others. It doesn't mean that the unhealthy foods can't be eaten, or even that they will cause harm to every one (it will not). I do think that they foods that people hold up as the pinnacle of health is based on very little good science and more on dogma. It's unfortunate.
The correct use of a term? There's an objectively correct use of terms outside of a context? I've always been of the impression that language is usage, but if you know of some other way a term can be objectively correctly, I'd be interested what particular in reality makes that work. It will also be great to finally tell all those people not speaking English they're using the wrong language.
Seriously consider my example of mushrooms. In nutrition, people usually talk of foods as being grains, vegetables, fruits, meats/proteins, and dairy. Does a mushroom technically fit any of those categories? Are people wrong when they put it in the vegetable category - biologically it is closer to meat.
As far as studies, would you consider RCT's for DASH or Mediterranean diets applicable? Is there a particular method you consider health, or do you accept the general markers used in health outcome predictions?
My take on it would be there are foods that could be said to be better at societal level, such as formulating dietary guidelines, but for the individual, there can be no a priori claim of a healthy food. Not even getting into obvious things like someone may have an allergy, what is healthy is going to be a product of current health status and intended goals - whole foods are actually probably the worst thing for someone that's been starved for an extended period for time for example, while high calorie "junk" food is possibly the best thing for such a person.
I'm not interested in arguing correct language usage.
Mushrooms are a funny case. I know of a few carnivores who eat them because, unlike plants, they dont cause them problems . I eat them on occasion too. I would put them in the fungi category.
I think there was one 2 week study on the dash diet. It is pretty light on science although not completely lacking. Mediterranean is not definitive either, although it appears to have many healthful foods.
I think there should be no guidelines at all until the science is definitive. So far, limiting highly processed and refined carbs, including when combined with fats, and avoiding trans fats seems to be closest ideas to reaching a consensus.
The thing is, there isn't really a fungi group in any common food plate, pyramid, or other categorization scheme I've come across. It seems like the candy-bar group - the foods at the tip of the pyramid - is closer to being an understood group in food schemas than fungi group. I think most people would categorize them as vegetables when organizing around those common schemas. Perhaps carnivores have a very simplified schema of autotrophs and heterotrophs, and they tend to only eat heterotrophs? That would neatly categorized mushrooms for them, though I find it odd there are people trying to have these categories.
I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I have a pretty strong inclination to believe there's been more than just one RCT done on the DASH diet to date.
I don't see the point in with-holding guidelines until the science is definitive - there is no such thing. Newtonian mechanics have worked since the 1600s and are still used overwhelming as the physics of everyday objects, but we absolutely know Newtonian Mechanics are technically incorrect. Science doesn't make definitive determinations. It is the process of becoming less wrong with more certainty.8 -
WinoGelato wrote: »And in the all animal vs a diet that includes grains and vegetables, don’t forget to make sure to mention that the all animal diet would need to include organ meats in order to get all the nutrients available in plants...
No, they would not need to eat organ meat. Organ meat is definitely very nutritious but muscle meat and marrow have all those nutrients that are needed.
But doesn't that suggest that good planning and supplementation is needed to ensure that a diet of only animal products meets all nutritional guidelines, just like you suggested that a vegetarian diet would?
7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions