Anyone else have issues with low carb diets?

I don't have issues with any kind of diet. If something works for you, then that's great. Why would you assume that any one way of eating would work for everybody? All I know is that a high carbohydrate diet does not work for me.

FYI, I've never shot for ketosis, but I've set my carbohydrate goal to 75-150 or so, or around 25% of my diet.

I see all this stuff on low carb and ketogenic diets and I'm horrified to tell you the god's honest truth.

Why on earth would you be horrified to state your opinion?

I understand that it works and it works fast, but does anyone ever care to know what's actually happening to their body during ketosis?

Yep. Sure do. I'm just not disciplined enough to consistently do ketosis, but I don't see any problem with it.

How it lowers the pH of your blood and can lead to kidney damage long term?

The operative word is CAN. Lots of things can lead to kidney damage.

...I was just curious if anyone shares my frustration with the Atkins and South Beach diets? Paleo is another one - I agree with the quality of foods, but banning grains and limiting fruit and replacing that with meat and fats is just another low carb diet.

You really need to define terms here. Are you only arguing against ketotic diets, or anything that restricts carbs, or just things that limit fruits & veggies? I think you have to separate grains from fruit here. I don't limit fruit, but that's because I was never a big fan in the first place.

Anyone know anything about biology? About metabolic processes?

I do, yes. I have researched the heck out of the impacts of macronutrient mixes for years.

Glucose is the body's preferred form of energy

Defined "preferred". This is pseudoscience without defining terms. Of course the body burns sugar first because we have very little ability to store it.

- it's the only macronutrient that is digested and utilized for energy the fastest and without any waste products (unlike protein/uric acid and fat/ketones) - the brain cannot survive without it and that's a fact.

You are correct. The brain cannot survive without glucose, but the body can create glucose without consuming carbohydrates. Technically speaking, carbohydrate is the only macronutrient that we survive entirely without, thought I wouldn't particularly want to.

If you starve your body of glucose, OF COURSE you're going to lose weight.

Why of course? If I eat 5000 calories of olive oil a day, I'm pretty sure I'm NOT going to lose weight.

Short term, I get it, it serves its purpose, but long term? not healthy. If you're looking to cut some weight before a competition, it's useful, but the normal fad dieters out there?

So you're telling me that fad dieting is dangerous? mmm hmmm... A deliberate conscious choice to go with a ketotic diet is not any more dangerous than the standard American diet.

I just think it's straight up dangerous. ESPECIALLY when you add exercise to the equation.
I could never go low carb (and yes, I have type 1 diabetes), because I exercise so much - how are you expected to fuel your workouts?

The human body is actually really good at burning fat, but I grant you that there is an adjustment from using sugar as a primary fuel to using fat as the primary fuel. I don't understand why you assume that because you are unable to do a thing, that others are also unable to do that thing.

I'm sorry, I know I'm going to ruffle some feathers here, and that's not necessarily my intention (please believe me). I just think low carb is almost like an easy way out vs. long term vitality and health.

Again with the fear of offense. I don't understand. Let's just have a dialog without the drama. As for the easy out - Easy? There's nothing easy about losing weight for me, and this is the only part of your rant that bothered me.

I'm not talking about carbs from breads, pastas and potatoes, by the way, I'm talking about carbs from fruits and vegetables. How can anyone argue that fruits and vegetables are NOT healthy? If you look at the percentage of fats and proteins in relation to carbs in naturally occurring fruits and vegetables, why would you think that a diet that is the direct INVERSE of that is healthy?

Anyone ever read that book 80/10/10 by Dr. Douglas Graham? Anyone ever see that movie Forks Over Knives? I guess those were eye openers for me.

I have not read that book or seen that movie, but I've read a few blog posts on Forks Over Knives and I wasn't impressed. What makes these media better than the other side of the argument?

... if you're a veggie eater, of course you're going to lean towards vegetarian/vegan. But when it comes to weight loss and health, I just don't agree with the low carb approach. I believe the best approach is to watch overall calories and portions, keep it simple and everything in moderation.

/end rant (sorry - seriously not trying to offend people here, just would like to start an open discussion on the topic)

So you've never heard of low-carb vegetarians?

The only part of your rant that offended me was your insinuation that I'm somehow taking the easy way out by going with a strategy that actually works for me. In other words my inability to succeed with your kind of diet somehow indicates a flaw in my character.

When did this happen? Link, or it didn't.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-much-glucose-does-your-brain-really-need/#axzz2AKomRHXp

One of many just with a quick Google search. Some are medical journals, this is not. Your brain will make the energy it needs from fat.

OK, that's not a study. It's a blog. And Mark's Daily Apple is a Paelo blog. I don't trust that source.

Google is only giving me more blogs and stuff from head-shrinkers. (I don't trust *them* either.)

There is no denying that some carbs are healthy and others are not healthy. Potatoes, White flour, white rice, sugar and other highly refined food products should take a back see to less processed carbohydrates like 100% whole wheat, brown rice, other whole grains, and fruits & vegetables. Potatoes and refined plant foods just don't have any significant nutritional value once they've had the rest of the plant stripped - they are just empty calories. They are OK in moderation but let's not forget the the nation got fat during the 80's and 90's eating fat free foods full of empty carbs like in snackwells and fat free ice cream.

A great example would be that one could choose to eat a sweet potato instead of a potato which has more carbs but it also has more nutrition than a potato so it's worth it. If one focus's on balanced nutrition, like getting enough fiber, vitamins, minerals and the right amount of protein for their needs, then the proper carbohydrate levels will fall right into place. If one wants to get proper nutrition, then they won't have room for that other stuff very often.

Potatoes are not "empty calories" and to state that they are "processed" is to *really* stretch the word processed. Is washing the dirt off a process? Then ok, yes, I wash my potatoes after I pull them from the ground to eat them.

If he wanted to prove fat spikes blood sugar, he could’ve simply shown a glucose reading after the olive oil. But instead he guzzles olive oil, stuffs himself with white flour and then measures his glucose. His conclusion is sleight-of-hand.

that's not at all what Delgado was trying to prove. fat does NOT raise blood glucose at all. carbs do. he was showing what happens when you COMBINE fat and carbs.

also, I'd like to point out, the study wasn't on triglycerides... your points on triglycerides could very well be true, but that wasn't the point of the experiment - it was to show how long blood glucose stays elevated when eating carbs paired with dietary fat.

Then why make a big deal of showing a lipid panel before and after the experiment? I'm well aware that high fat and high carbs are a bad combination. I just don't see what the video has to do with disproving a low-carb approach to diabetic control. Many state that increasing fat is not harmful IF carbs are reduced at the same time...I know of no low-carb diet that advocates combining massive amounts of fat and carbs.

dietary fat leads to insulin resistance.

I think those studies are based off of ultra high fat diets..........which typically lead to subjects being overweight, hence the insulin resistance starting to occur.

As I understand it, the mechanism is that both very high and very low carbohydrate intake causes insulin resistance. The very high is obvious, but very low carbohydrate makes your body "want" to keep what glucose IS available out and ready instead of tucked away somewhere. This is because, as discussed earlier, the brain does need glucose.

In a very low carbohydrate situation though, I don't see how insulin resistance would be harmful.