carbs necessary?

Carbs are not required to survive.

The bolded statement is very irresponsible to spread around. Especially in a fitness & nutrition forum.

So, that statement is completely correct and factual. The human body can survive just fine on protein and fat, with zero carbohydrate intake. If you eat that diet, your body will produce ketones and glucose from the protein and fat and you will survive just fine. You might not enjoy a diet without fruits, vegetables and nuts in it, but they are not required to survive. Given that, why is it not responsible to make that statement?

how would one get vitamins like C?

Are we discussing "absolute, zero carb" diets, i.e. no vegetable intake at all? In that case, you can get vitamin C from liver, oysters, fish roe, heart.

Basically, if you're going to eat completely zero carb, including no vegetables, you need to eat offal to compensate. Or, supplementation is possible. If you decide to go low carb, but not zero -- 100g of leafy greens have 200% of your vitamin C RDA.

Telling others that carbs are "absolutely unnecessary" is spreading misinformation and can be dangerous if a person is inclined to read a message board and take what they read to an extreme. Carbs have vital functions beyond just providing an energy source. Try replacing those other functions and see how it works out for you.

Also, just FYI, there is some evidence that keto diets can cause bad side effects (like kidney stones) in some people. The controlled groups that have been studied are mostly the children in the epilepsy treatment groups and there has been evidence of these side effects in a significant number of kids. As for adults -- well, the truth is that people say there is no evidence of side effects because no one has ever done a controlled study to find out. So low carb at your own risk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19049581
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22004525

Please give me examples of those "functions". I don't advocate a zero carb diet -- in fact, I don't advocate any diet aside from the one that works for you. I do have an issue with the misinformation surrounding carbohydrates being "essential". You can live and be healthy without them.

Your first link points to the requirement for more research, by the way.

Nothing wrong with carbs. It is the type of carbs. Whole grains, unprocessed foods are better sources of carbs. Think good carbs i.e.whole grains as opposed to white bread and starchy potatoes. BTW--hummus is a good source of carbs.
Inuits ate all the carbs they could get --problem was they were only available in the summer. Many of the minerals and vitamins we get from fruits and veggies they get from fat in sea mammals and northern fish.
Finally, subsistence living is hard work--don't rule out the amount of exercise you get in a hunting-gathering lifestyle and a factor in general health. People on this site are constantly trying to do to much, too fast--that sets you up for failure. You want to change how you eat, and eat smarting, get more activity in your life. You'd be surprised how much you can consume if you eat, smaller meals, up the exercise, and eat smarter. Skipping meals, going without breakfast or snacks, sets you up for failure. Plan your meals and snacks well in advance--but make sure every meal is adequate--that way you aren't as likely to binge.

You're going wheat free, which is probably the best thing you can do for yourself at this point. It's going to take you awhile to get adapted to not eating wheat or processed carbs, but once you get used to it, you will feel amazing! Wheat is bad for you, I don't' care what anyone else says, I truly believe that. It's highly processed and NOT natural. Check out the book "Wheat Belly" by William Davis for scientific proof. Anyhow, keep going at it, make sure to eat plenty of fruits and veggies to fulfill your carb needs. Good luck!

And yet Dr. Davis is still overweight :huh:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50138376n
(January, 2013)

He also stated that replacing wheat with other carbs will not help.......basically he's pushing low carb with wheat being the popular bad guy right now. I do agree that wheat is probably over consumed in lieu of other sources that offer more nutrition.

Not true... Read the book

You're going wheat free, which is probably the best thing you can do for yourself at this point. It's going to take you awhile to get adapted to not eating wheat or processed carbs, but once you get used to it, you will feel amazing! Wheat is bad for you, I don't' care what anyone else says, I truly believe that. It's highly processed and NOT natural. Check out the book "Wheat Belly" by William Davis for scientific proof. Anyhow, keep going at it, make sure to eat plenty of fruits and veggies to fulfill your carb needs. Good luck!

And yet Dr. Davis is still overweight :huh:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50138376n
(January, 2013)

He also stated that replacing wheat with other carbs will not help.......basically he's pushing low carb with wheat being the popular bad guy right now. I do agree that wheat is probably over consumed in lieu of other sources that offer more nutrition.

Not true... Read the book

I did, read it again.

On a more serious note, if you go back through this thread, you will find a few more of my posts that address these very questions.

Functions of Carbs (other than energy source): http://www.sparknotes.com/health/carbohydrates/section2.rhtml (A simple overview I posted earlier). Includes Fatty Acid metabolism, Biological Recognition Processes, protecting muscle, dietary fiber (for pooping!), etc. More from the Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/carbohydrates/MY01458/NSECTIONGROUP=2. and more here: http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/negative-results-eating-carbs-4182.html. And then there's the simple fact that most of our essential vitamins and minerals are in some way wrapped up with carbs. You have to eat the carbs to get to the things your body needs to survive or you get sick (scurvy anyone?).

To address several things in the links you provided:

1. Sparknotes (not exactly a heavy science site, as I'm sure you'll agree) states that carbs are necessary for "providing energy and the regulation of blood glucose". This is a little misleading -- fat metabolism can also provide energy (in the form of ketones) - and insulin and glucagon are the primary regulators of blood glucose. Carbs raise your blood glucose - in the absence of carbohydrate digestion, there is far less glucose to regulate in your blood.

2. Sparing the use of proteins for energy - yes, if one were to restrict both carbs and fat, your body would turn catabolic very quickly. That's why ketogenic diets are 65%+ fats and moderate protein -- to provide an alternative fuel source than muscle, and to give the body enough protein to spare existing muscle and fuel your brain.

3. Breakdown of fatty acids and preventing ketosis -- since ketosis is the point of a ketogenic diet, I'm not sure how this supports anything. The article itself states, "The next priority of the body is to shift the use of fuel from glucose to fatty acids and ketone bodies. From then on, ketones become more and more important as a source of fuel while fatty acids and glucose become less important."

4. Sweeteners are far from essential.

5. Fiber is useful, for sure, but not "essential". You can function just fine without it.

As far as vitamins and minerals (which can be essential, unlike carbohydrates), you state that they are "wrapped up" in carbs. That makes carbohydrates an "easy" source of vitamins and minerals -- not an essential one. That's an important distinction.

Being healthy with zero carbs (note this is different than low carb): Everyone loves to point at the Inuits to prove this can be done. Take the time to read how they actually did it. If you are willing to eat every part of the animal including all internal organs and offal, yes it can be done (they got their vitamin C from eating adrenal glands, for instance). But I don't know very many people who are willing to do that. It's more fair to say that this is possible, but not practical and not at all doable for most people. I know some of the zero carbers eat just protein and fat and then take a vitamin supplement, but that's not really getting all of the vital nutrients you get from real food. And, in the framework of this discussion, it's not valid since you have to get nutrients from a source other than food.

I am well aware that zero carb is different than low carb, though it likely would have been useful to define our terms at some point in this discussion. I am personally not a huge fan of using the Inuit example for anything.

Your next sentence, though, is telling: "If you are willing to eat every part of the animal including all internal organs and offal, yes it can be done (they got their vitamin C from eating adrenal glands, for instance). But I don't know very many people who are willing to do that."

That, right there, makes carbs non-essential. Again, a situation where we probably would benefit from a definition -- I define an essential nutrient as a nutrient that the body requires for normal functioning and cannot be synthesized in necessary amounts by standard biological processes (i.e. must be taken in from food). Vitamin C is an essential nutrient for humans. Sure, it's most easily imbibed from leafy greens (not oranges, despite common misconception). That doesn't make leafy greens essential -- because you can also get Vitamin C from liver, fish roe, etc. Willingness of people to do it or not doesn't speak to whether they are essential -- just ease.

And for what it's worth, offal can be pretty tasty and is eaten in most non-Western cuisines quite regularly.

Yes, I'm sure both studies pointed to the need for more research. I don't think I've ever read a study that didn't as this is nature of the beast. If you believe that most scientific research articles provide a concrete answer to a question without any need for follow-up research, I have some ocean-front property in Ohio that I would like to sell you. And also, that's why I said "there is evidence" and not "It is known fact." And "low carb at your own risk" rather than "you're going to slowly kill yourself with low carb, the research proves it."

Fair enough. I simply think that it's worth mentioning that if you cite an article, and that article specifically mentions that other studies disagree with his findings, it's worth pointing out.

Out of curiosity and since you say you have no particular stance on this issue, is your point of view here that the only qualification for a nutrient being "essential" is that a person would die without it? I see it differently. I think something is essential if a person is courting serious illness or other harm to their body by not providing that nutrient Or if the body gives clear signals that something is wrong when that nutrient is not provided. If a person removes something from their diet and is then afflicted with headaches, muscle cramps, low energy, dizziness, etc, their body is trying to tell them something. Gluconeogenesis is meant to be a homeostasis and emergency backup mechanism. I think it can be used safely in the short term to kickstart weight loss But when a person uses it for an ongoing lifestyle, they have to do things that may be causing long term damage to their body in order to compensate for immediate issues (like potential kidney damage from eating too much protein in order to keep muscle from degrading and cranking out ketones to keep your body, well, living and all that). To me that means that they are missing an essential nutrient.

I defined "essential" above. It's a word that has meaning. However, to address the headaches, low energy, cramps, dizziness, etc. These effects tend to occur only either in the very beginning of the diet (as the body is switching to ketosis, it's not a perfect changeover), or as a result of a poorly implemented diet (i.e. not taking in enough sodium, potassium, magnesium, or other essential nutrients in order to properly regulate body function). Most of the negative effects of the first week or two of a ketogenic diet can be staved off by simply taking in enough salt, as your body is flushing it pretty rapidly early on.

As far as kidney damage goes -- to stay ketogenic, one gets around 25-30% of their calories from protein. For a 2000kcal a day person, that's 500kcal or around 125g of protein. That's far from kidney damage levels, and more than enough to stave off catabolism.

For what it's worth, I like vegetables. I eat far more of them on a 20g/day net carb diet than I ever did on a calorie restrictive diet, or a standard diet, because they are an easy way to take in nutrients. And because I don't want to eat beef heart every day (though I do have some in my freezer now -- if you've not tried it, it's pretty good). One of the things I find somewhat odd is that we can have very long discussions about the difference between "healthful" and "livable" with regard to ketogenic diets (though I do tend to enjoy them), but that lens is never turned the same way on the "eat ice cream IIFYM" method of eating, and the "clean eating" folks get shot down. I'm not sure how essential vitamin aspartame is (and I eat plenty of it).

Is a ketogenic diet the easiest diet to switch to? No. Does an informed decision to switch to a ketogenic diet cause you to have to change your perceptions of certain things and be willing to pay attention to what you eat in order to ensure that you're getting everything you need? Of course -- though I fail to see that awareness as a bad thing.

The truth is, every dietary change people undertake here has it's ups and downs. People have the ability to decide for themselves what they want to do with their bodies. A ketogenic style diet has worked very well for me, and I feel much better than I had in the years before I started it (I've eaten ketogenically for over a year now). For me, I dislike calorie counting. I don't do it while eating keto, and I've lost 70+ pounds. I eat when I'm hungry, until I'm not hungry anymore. That simplifies things. My blood sugar is under control, my triglycerides have dropped to normal levels, and my cholesterol is the best it's ever been. Other people choose to lose weight or eat differently -- that's their choice, and my way is far from the only way. It might not even be the ideal way, for myself or others -- if I find something better, I'll likely give it a shot. I do, however, think it's important that we understand that things like "essential nutrients" have a clinical definition, and not redefine them to fit whatever our current discussion happens to be.

Oh, great. Now you think your body doesn't need carbs OR fiber?! lol. You are probably ONE cranky person

Clearly missed the point.

It drives me crazy how these threads end up in personal arguments. Why don't you guys go to a private message or something and argue about whether science says you need carbs or sugar or fiber or whatever? Your insults to each other aren't helping OP.

Eating healthy carbs will not hinder your weight loss, OP. Eat them if you want them. Your diet seems to consist mostly of fruits and vegetables, so I don't see it being a problem.

I have a PhD in biology and up until this year, was a h.s. biology teacher (now switching to chem and AP Environmental Science).

Your body gets energy from glucose, the chemical formula of which is C6H12O6. Other sugars have variations of this chemical formula, like C12H24O12, etc. Your body breaks all sugars down into glucose.

Proteins also have C, H, and O, but your body is lazy and is going to only break them down into individual amino acids (with the N group still attached) if it can. If it has NO other source of sugar, it will "cannibalize" those amino acids and break them down into their C, H, and ) components, but it doesn't want to.

Fat is also composed of solely C, H, and O, but in different proportions that is more difficult to break down. Once again, your body CAN use fat as its source of sugar, but it doesn't want to.

Based on all of this, it is clear that your body is indeed made to eat sugar, as without it, you is gonna DIE. Yes, your body can take some drastic measures and start cobbling together the things it needs to make ATP, but I think that sugar in some form is preferable (carbs are also sugars, just longer chains that take longer to break down. Imagine eating a Snickers bar, or a piece of white bread, or brown rice. Which gives you energy the fastest? Snickers, because there are very short sugar chains, easy to break to get energy. Which causes you to crash the fastest? Also the Snickers because you break the sugars down so quickly. The white bread will be in the middle as far as longevity and the brown rice would be the winner, all because the sugar chains are getting longer, taking your body longer to break it down).

Here's the rub of it, though: as humans were evolving, sugars in nature were rare. They were prized and a valuable source of energy, but most of the time they weren't around. However, there were also SOME form of carbs available, in the form of grasses and vegetables. So, did humans evolve eating carbs? Yes. Does that mean your body needs them? Yes. Can you eff with your body and give it nothing but steak and live? Sure. Is it healthy? No.