carbs necessary?

I have to agree that carbs are non essential for survival. Peer reviewed clinical studies will back that up and I following along with science.

If we really just look at life as black and white, then our only purpose is just to survive and pass on our genes to offspring.

But I'd like to think we'd like to have more fun and happiness along the way.........................which is why I eat pizza.

I agree with you. I find myself perfectly happy and able to have fun without eating massive amounts of carbohydrates, and my health has dramatically improved as well. My method of nutrition has worked for me, and I developed the way I eat based upon the science. Do I think pizza is tasty? Absolutely. I even eat it occasionally. Ice cream, too. Neither very frequently (once or twice a year, on average -- though I make no-carb pizza pretty regularly, ice cream has no good low-carb analogs).

The main thrust of this conversation, for me, is distinguishing between essential nutrition -- that is, what we need for survival and is the same for all of us -- and the fun/happiness piece of nutrition, which differs for everyone. Once you have the essential nutrition covered, there are as many different ways to eat as there are people, so do what works best for you.

I have to agree that carbs are non essential for survival. Peer reviewed clinical studies will back that up and I following along with science.

If we really just look at life as black and white, then our only purpose is just to survive and pass on our genes to offspring.

But I'd like to think we'd like to have more fun and happiness along the way.........................which is why I eat pizza.

I agree with you. I find myself perfectly happy and able to have fun without eating massive amounts of carbohydrates, and my health has dramatically improved as well. My method of nutrition has worked for me, and I developed the way I eat based upon the science. Do I think pizza is tasty? Absolutely. I even eat it occasionally. Ice cream, too. Neither very frequently (once or twice a year, on average -- though I make no-carb pizza pretty regularly, ice cream has no good low-carb analogs).

The main thrust of this conversation, for me, is distinguishing between essential nutrition -- that is, what we need for survival and is the same for all of us -- and the fun/happiness piece of nutrition, which differs for everyone. Once you have the essential nutrition covered, there are as many different ways to eat as there are people, so do what works best for you.

It's also important because for the people that do choose to low carb, it is frustrating when people come in and tell them it's dangerous and they are killing themselves because carbs are a required nutrient.

It's a perfectly safe personal dietary choice and I don't know why some people get so nuts about it.

Early man did not only eat meat. They ate leaves and bushes, and also all the vegetation those animals ate as early man ate EVERYTHING of the animals they killed, including stomach

I think a lot of people are confusing eating carbs with over eating carbs. No one is advocating eating a crap load of carbs, but the body does need carbs, protein and fats. Even those of you following low carb diet ARE eating carbs.

Veggies and Fruits have carbs just as refined / highly processed breads, chips and pastas do. However, you are much better to eat the whole foods nature provided. A suggestion is to plan an afternoon snack. Hummus with carrots or celery would be wonderful. Or apple slices with some raw almonds. You get the crunch factor with these types of snacks.

Agreed- awesome advice! Look up foods with natural carbs- your body will adjust but it can be a struggle.

Carbohydrates are brain food and quick energy sources. There are necessary. Period. But choosing carbohydrates that are going to work for you and satisfy your body's needs are important. Try carrots and hummus with some alomonds for extra protein, fiber, and good fats. Or berries & citrus with unsweetened greek yogurt or string cheese to get you through the slump.

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.

You asked for a list of essential functions of carbs other than providing energy and I was giving you some decent list of known functions, some of which are essential. I didn't intend to imply that every single function on every list was critical.

However, a few points:

2. Sure you can make that argument. But I'm going to argue that if you want to protect your muscles from being degraded at some point in a long-term ketogenic diet, you need to be eating more than just a moderate level of protein (although I realize that this is recommended by most keto diet, I'm just not convinced that it's enough). Your body can only break down fat at a certain rate. If you exceed what it can do, the body goes looking for energy elsewhere. If you eat plenty of protein, your body will turn to dietary protein. If you don't, it will eat muscle. Whether you are in ketosis or not does not change this.
3. Fatty acid metabolism -- A reason that "preventing ketosis" is considered to be an essential function of carbs is that when you enter ketosis, you produce all of those ketones. Yes, I am well aware that they are used as energy. But if all of the ketones a person has produced are not used within a certain time period (24hr, I think), they have to be disposed of through the kidneys which puts a lot of pressure on those organs. Carbs break down fat completely without producing ketones, protecting the kidneys and, yes, providing energy.
4. Agreed.
5. I'm going to disagree. You need bulk to your stool to keep the digestive system healthy. Without it you get everything from constipation to diverticular disease (which makes dietary fiber essential for a healthy body). What alternative are you suggesting?

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.

I can see your point about ease of access, however you also proved my point in a way. You said that you consider an essential nutrient as a "nutrient that the body requires for normal functioning and cannot be synthesized in necessary amounts by standard biological processes." Carbs, by your definition, are an essential nutrient because being in an ongoing state of ketosis is not normal functioning. The body is a very adaptable thing and you can force it to get used to living in a ketnogenic state. However, just because you can force a thing to happen does not mean that it is a good idea or that it is "normal." The human body preferentially uses carbohydrates as fuel and resorts to gluconeogenesis for homoestatis and in times of emergency, like starvation. Ketosis (long term) is not a normal functioning state of the human body.

Another important point in all of this is that I think that you have to consider the whole human system when you talk about nutrition and diet. When you say that a peson's willingness to do a thing is not important in the argument of "essential" I can agree with that. However, you have to consider that if you tell people that a certain thing (like carbs) is totally unimportant and you can live without it while knowing full well that the vast majority of people are unwilling to do what is necessary to remain healthy without that supposedly totally unnecessary nutrient, you are just splitting hairs and putting out dangerous information, IMO.

Also, I've never tried offal. I think I'm going to take your word for it.

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.

Fair enough again.

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.

The salt flushing would be due to all of the water loss, correct? Which puts stress on the kidneys, causes dehydration, causes loss of all of the important nutrients you listed above -- how can this possibly be good for a person's body even in the short term? As I stated above, just because your body eventually finds a way to live with this doesn't mean that its a good idea, or that it's healthy or normal.

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.

The problem I have with this statement isn't that I think it is necessarily incorrect. It's that people use these kinds of numbers and arguments to categorically state that ketogenic diets are 100% safe. There is evidence that kidney damage may be occuring in people on ketogenic diets (as shown in the studies above) and there simply hasn't been enough research to state, without any doubt, that people are not at risk for kidney damage or other long-term side effects from this kind of diet. That kind of damage can take years to show up and the controlled studies that have been done show some evidence that there are adverse side effects (with some disagreement from the other side, as you pointed out earlier). The fact of the matter is that we just don't know for sure if this kind of diet is actually completely safe or not. So telling people that it's safe and everyone who has misgivings is just low carb bashing (which I've seen on this site) is telling them an opinion as if it is a known fact and that's not fair to people who are trying to make an informed decision.

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).

Fair statement. For me the difference is that ketosis deliberately induces a biochemical change in the way that your body produces energy and the long-term effects are still largely unknown. And it does have all the makings of a fad diet which we all know are notorious for starting the yo-yo diet cycle. It takes the idea of eating a certain way to an extreme that not many people can maintain for a long period of time. Eating ice cream for dessert is not doing your body any favors, but having an ice cream cone once a month or even an oreo after dinner every night isn't going to alter your energy production biochemistry. Many of the people who do an IIFYM diet are eating a balanced diet the vast majority of the time, so their body is functioning normally and getting all of the essentials. Although, you are right that we don't scrutinize it the same way and it probably isn't fair to jump all over low carb while not closely examining everyone else's dietary choices also.

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.

I think I get worked up about keto diets because they are so often presented in certain ways. The phrases that set me off are "Keto is totally safe" "Carbs are totally uncessary" and pretty much anything that implies keto is a magic cure for an illness (because even though keto can help certain diseases, I have yet to see evidence that it can actually cure anything). When those kinds of statements are made, it leads people away from informed decisions. You and I could argue all day about whether carbs are stictly "essential", however at the end of the day the fact is that if you don't have carbs, you have to eat in exactly the right way to try to make up for it. Telling people that carbs are useless, unnecessary, empty calories (all things I've seen on this site), implies that they serve no purpose and cutting them out will have no ill effects. Clearly a person will suffer from ill effects if they don't know the whole story of what carbs do, why they are important, what happens to your body without them, and how you have to eat to try to compensate for them. If others would like people to make informed decisions that lead them to be more aware of their bodies and what they are eating, they should consider sharing real information instead of making incorrect blanket statements.

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.

I'm genuinely happy for you that you are doing so well with your diet and your health. And, although it may not seem like it, I don't really have a problem with people making an informed decision to go onto a keto diet. I have a problem with information being spread around that isn't true and that may potentially lead others to make badly informed decisions. If someone wants to make a point that they believe a lack of carbohydrates can be compensated for by eating a certain way, they should say that, not "carbs are unnecessary." Because carbs are necessary when you are eating to feed a body that is functioning normally.

PS. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on carbs as an essential nutrient. Mainly I think because one of us sees ketosis as an acceptable "normal" way for the body to function and the other does not.

Before I get into another long post, I wanted to thank you for the discussion. It's been a good one for me and hopefully informative to people who are still reading this thing.

You asked for a list of essential functions of carbs other than providing energy and I was giving you some decent list of known functions, some of which are essential. I didn't intend to imply that every single function on every list was critical.

However, a few points:

2. Sure you can make that argument. But I'm going to argue that if you want to protect your muscles from being degraded at some point in a long-term ketogenic diet, you need to be eating more than just a moderate level of protein (although I realize that this is recommended by most keto diet, I'm just not convinced that it's enough). Your body can only break down fat at a certain rate. If you exceed what it can do, the body goes looking for energy elsewhere. If you eat plenty of protein, your body will turn to dietary protein. If you don't, it will eat muscle. Whether you are in ketosis or not does not change this.

When you state that your body can only break down fat at a certain rate, are you referring to stored fat, or dietary fat intake? The goal of a well-formed ketogenic diet is to intake enough protein to provide the necessary glucose for your brain to function, which works out to around 30g if you're fully ketotic, and 120g as an upper bound for what the brain can process in a day (this is from memory, so I may be slightly off). Somewhere in the middle for all other circumstances. 30g is not a terribly large amount to get from protein -- around 100-125g of protein would be more than sufficient to provide that much, and fats will also contribute some glucose via glycerol breakdown.

So, for what it's worth, if you're a peak strength athlete, sure -- maybe you wouldn't want to eat this way. But most of us aren't peak athletes, and for the large majority of us, a properly formed ketogenic diet would provide enough protein to prevent gross catabolism.

3. Fatty acid metabolism -- A reason that "preventing ketosis" is considered to be an essential function of carbs is that when you enter ketosis, you produce all of those ketones. Yes, I am well aware that they are used as energy. But if all of the ketones a person has produced are not used within a certain time period (24hr, I think), they have to be disposed of through the kidneys which puts a lot of pressure on those organs. Carbs break down fat completely without producing ketones, protecting the kidneys and, yes, providing energy.

I've seen some studies regarding kidney stone formation in children, but I haven't seen them repeated with adults. I think that children tend to have a different hormonal and physical environment than adults do, given the changes their body is going through, and one should undertake any sort of change with caution. I honestly haven't studied its effects on children enough to have that conversation intelligently.

4. Agreed.
5. I'm going to disagree. You need bulk to your stool to keep the digestive system healthy. Without it you get everything from constipation to diverticular disease (which makes dietary fiber essential for a healthy body). What alternative are you suggesting?

I feel the need to get back to the fact that a clinical definition of what "essential" means. It doesn't mean, "things that are generally healthful". I agree with you that fiber is generally a benefit. Without it, though, you don't die. It might seem like a minor distinction to some, but it's really not -- the foundations of what are "essential" are needed before we can have good working conversations on what's "healthful". It baselines the discussion in a way that is real and based on a definition that most scientists would agree with. Basically, it makes sure we're speaking the same language and not talking past one another.

As for your link between fiber as protecting against diverticular disease, research is available that calls that link into question:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016508511015095

"The prevalence of diverticulosis increased with age, as expected. High intake of fiber did not reduce the prevalence of diverticulosis. Instead, the quartile with the highest fiber intake had a greater prevalence of diverticulosis than the lowest (prevalence ratio = 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.13–1.50). Risk increased when calculated based on intake of total fiber, fiber from grains, soluble fiber, and insoluble fiber. Constipation was not a risk factor. Compared to individuals with <7 bowel movements per week, individuals with >15 bower movements per week had a 70% greater risk for diverticulosis (prevalence ratio = 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.24–2.34). Neither physical inactivity nor intake of fat or red meat was associated with diverticulosis."

I can see your point about ease of access, however you also proved my point in a way. You said that you consider an essential nutrient as a "nutrient that the body requires for normal functioning and cannot be synthesized in necessary amounts by standard biological processes." Carbs, by your definition, are an essential nutrient because being in an ongoing state of ketosis is not normal functioning.

Ketosis is a standard biological process. Normalized human function includes biological processes that sustain life - fueling your brain, cell oxidation, etc. Our bodies adjust to the lack of carbs readily and you can live long term just fine without them.

The body is a very adaptable thing and you can force it to get used to living in a ketnogenic state. However, just because you can force a thing to happen does not mean that it is a good idea or that it is "normal." The human body preferentially uses carbohydrates as fuel and resorts to gluconeogenesis for homoestatis and in times of emergency, like starvation. Ketosis (long term) is not a normal functioning state of the human body.

We should define normal -- I think you're using it as "the state that most people are in most of the time". I'm using it as "a standard response to a given stimulus". As for the body preferentially breaking down carbohydrates, I'm not a huge fan of that argument. The body breaks down alcohol even more preferentially than other carbohydrates, but it wouldn't make sense to champion the whiskey diet.

Again, at it's base, there's an accepted concept of nutrients that are considered essential to the human body. It's not a very out there statement to say that carbohydrate is not on it -- it's a generally accepted fact among the medical community, even among those who champion high carbohydrate diets.

We're discussing healthfulness of one diet or another -- a topic on which reasonable people can disagree, because nutritional science is pretty poor. It's a very useful discussion to have.

Another important point in all of this is that I think that you have to consider the whole human system when you talk about nutrition and diet. When you say that a peson's willingness to do a thing is not important in the argument of "essential" I can agree with that. However, you have to consider that if you tell people that a certain thing (like carbs) is totally unimportant and you can live without it while knowing full well that the vast majority of people are unwilling to do what is necessary to remain healthy without that supposedly totally unnecessary nutrient, you are just splitting hairs and putting out dangerous information, IMO.

I don't feel that carbs are unimportant -- and wouldn't recommend people eat a fully carb-free diet (including people who are looking at ketosis). I find statements like "your body needs carbs to live" to be just as misleading and reckless as saying "you should not eat any carbs ever" because neither statement is qualified or explained. The fact that I'm having this very long discussion with you is proof that I'm willing to explain the reasoning behind my thoughts.

I think we can have consensus between us that a good diet would likely utilize some form of dietary carbohydrate.

Also, I've never tried offal. I think I'm going to take your word for it.

Swing by sometime, we'll grill some beef heart. It's like really steak-y steak.

The salt flushing would be due to all of the water loss, correct? Which puts stress on the kidneys, causes dehydration, causes loss of all of the important nutrients you listed above -- how can this possibly be good for a person's body even in the short term? As I stated above, just because your body eventually finds a way to live with this doesn't mean that its a good idea, or that it's healthy or normal.

I think you make a leap between "water loss" and "dehydration" that isn't supported. You can flip it to say, "high carbohydrate diets lead to bloating and excess salt retention, thus requiring us to lower salt intake in order to prevent adverse reaction to high sodium levels in our diet."

Take, as a thought experiment, Mr. A. He's on a standard American diet, he's used to feeling how he feels on his standard american diet, he eats all low-sodium, low-fat foods because he's been told to do so all his life. Monday, he wakes up in Ketoland jail, and is fed a perfectly ketogenic diet.

The first few days on this diet, he's going to feel differently than he did beforehand. His body will store less water than usual. This will make him feel "bad", because it's different than what he's used to -- that doesn't make it dangerous or mean he's dehydrated. Just means that it's a different feeling for him. After a few days, he feels fine again. At no point was he in a dangerous state -- at least, no more so than any other diet. If you don't intake sodium and potassium, you will die, on any diet. I personally think the low-sodium recommendations for people on high-carb diets are more likely to lead to adverse issues than the advice for those on ketogenic diets, which is, "**** it, salt the **** out of that if you want."

As for dehydration -- with a standard water intake on keto (i.e. a liter or two a day), you'll not have any issues -- which is pretty much what they tell you to do on non-ketogenic diets as well. As for sodium, it's just a matter of salting your food -- something that most of us do, anyway -- or we did until we realized that we were bloated and retaining salt as a reaction to our high carbohydrate diets...see what I did there?

The problem I have with this statement isn't that I think it is necessarily incorrect. It's that people use these kinds of numbers and arguments to categorically state that ketogenic diets are 100% safe. There is evidence that kidney damage may be occuring in people on ketogenic diets (as shown in the studies above) and there simply hasn't been enough research to state, without any doubt, that people are not at risk for kidney damage or other long-term side effects from this kind of diet. That kind of damage can take years to show up and the controlled studies that have been done show some evidence that there are adverse side effects (with some disagreement from the other side, as you pointed out earlier). The fact of the matter is that we just don't know for sure if this kind of diet is actually completely safe or not. So telling people that it's safe and everyone who has misgivings is just low carb bashing (which I've seen on this site) is telling them an opinion as if it is a known fact and that's not fair to people who are trying to make an informed decision.

There's evidence that kidney stones may form in the very small subset of children on ketogenic diets. I'm not sure that's good enough to extrapolate out to the general population, as most research on adult subjects has shown ketosis to be asymptomatic.

I'm not going to say, without a doubt, that people are not at risk of kidney damage or other long-term side effects from this diet. I will tell you that people are at risk of kidney damage and long-term side effects from a standard american diet. I can tell you that the odds of developing Type II diabetes likely approaches zero on a long term ketogenic diet -- which is something that you can't say about high-carb diets. Diabetes correlates very strongly with all sorts of disease states -- heart attack, stroke, high blood pressure, neuropathy -- and kidney disease.

My issue with the way you approach it, is if a person on a ketogenic diet develops kidney issues, you attack the idea of ketosis first. If a person on a high carb, standard diet develops kidney issues, you likely don't do the same with the high carb paradigm -- and kidney issues are very prevalent among the population today, most of whom are on high-carb, standard diets.

I won't unequivocally state that ketogenic diets are safe, nor will I do so for any diet at any point.

But from an observational standpoint -- we've been told that we should eat a low-fat, high-carb diet for, what, 50 years now? Basically since the advent of the food pyramid. In that time, the incidence of diabetes, heart disease, and obesity have all climbed, significantly.

I wouldn't make the claim that high-carb diets are very safe from a disease-inducement point of view either, to be honest.

Fair statement. For me the difference is that ketosis deliberately induces a biochemical change in the way that your body produces energy and the long-term effects are still largely unknown. And it does have all the makings of a fad diet which we all know are notorious for starting the yo-yo diet cycle. It takes the idea of eating a certain way to an extreme that not many people can maintain for a long period of time. Eating ice cream for dessert is not doing your body any favors, but having an ice cream cone once a month or even an oreo after dinner every night isn't going to alter your energy production biochemistry. Many of the people who do an IIFYM diet are eating a balanced diet the vast majority of the time, so their body is functioning normally and getting all of the essentials. Although, you are right that we don't scrutinize it the same way and it probably isn't fair to jump all over low carb while not closely examining everyone else's dietary choices also.

I think that there are adoption issues with every diet that can lead to the yo-yo diet cycle. One of the issues, though, is looking at ketogenic diets in the abstract -- "20g net carb, no sugar, blah blah" -- makes it seem more extreme than it really is, at least from a food intake standpoint. I'll log my food for today and copy and paste tomorrow. If you remove the "ketogenic" tag and the "no carb" mantra, I'd be willing to bet that my eating habits don't look all that odd, or out of line with what we would consider normal or healthy. That'd just be my thought, honestly.

My belief, in general, is that there are likely plenty of societal concerns that make adapting to any sort of diet problematic, though it might be outside of the scope of this specific conversation (it is a conversation I'd be interested in having, though, if you'd like). My general feeling is that obesity is the common link to the worst of the illnesses that we experience -- the diabetes, heart disease, stroke, cancers, etc., and that targeting obesity is the most important thing people can do (then the rest will fall into line behind it). The standard diet and standard dieting advice hasn't done a very good job at it -- it's worth noting that for just as long as people have been promoting "fad" diets, people have been promoting "balanced, healthy" diets. Widespread adoption has been poor on both.

I think I get worked up about keto diets because they are so often presented in certain ways. The phrases that set me off are "Keto is totally safe" "Carbs are totally uncessary" and pretty much anything that implies keto is a magic cure for an illness (because even though keto can help certain diseases, I have yet to see evidence that it can actually cure anything). When those kinds of statements are made, it leads people away from informed decisions. You and I could argue all day about whether carbs are stictly "essential", however at the end of the day the fact is that if you don't have carbs, you have to eat in exactly the right way to try to make up for it. Telling people that carbs are useless, unnecessary, empty calories (all things I've seen on this site), implies that they serve no purpose and cutting them out will have no ill effects. Clearly a person will suffer from ill effects if they don't know the whole story of what carbs do, why they are important, what happens to your body without them, and how you have to eat to try to compensate for them. If others would like people to make informed decisions that lead them to be more aware of their bodies and what they are eating, they should consider sharing real information instead of making incorrect blanket statements.

I don't think keto is any more magical than any other cure. I think ketogenic diets are a viable way to reduce fat and become healthier. Like any diet, you have to pay attention to what you eat. People may say that carbs are useless, unnecessary, and empty -- but I haven't, nor will I. I think some carbs likely fall into that category - at least the empty part - but there exist plenty of carbs that are very healthful.

I think we get back to the issue that a difference exists between saying "carbs are not essential" and "you should never eat carbs". The first, I believe, and I believe the science is pretty firm on that. The second is advice I would not give to anyone. Anytime someone undertakes a dietary change, they should do so in a way that is researched, understood, and undertaken with care. Our bodies are pretty good at telling us what they need, we should just do a better job in listening.

I'm genuinely happy for you that you are doing so well with your diet and your health. And, although it may not seem like it, I don't really have a problem with people making an informed decision to go onto a keto diet. I have a problem with information being spread around that isn't true and that may potentially lead others to make badly informed decisions.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

If someone wants to make a point that they believe a lack of carbohydrates can be compensated for by eating a certain way, they should say that, not "carbs are unnecessary." Because carbs are necessary when you are eating to feed a body that is functioning normally.

PS. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on carbs as an essential nutrient. Mainly I think because one of us sees ketosis as an acceptable "normal" way for the body to function and the other does not.

I think you're probably right on the second part (though, as I've beaten a dead horse with above, I obviously disagree with the first). In any case, it's been an enlightening (and hopefully informative) discussion. I appreciate the time you spent on it. Thanks!

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?

It is irresponsible on a nutrition forum to suggest that people avoid fresh fruits and vegetables, for sure.

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

:flowerforyou:

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.

:drinker:

The body needs one thing and its called CALORIES which equals ENERGY to survive . doesn't matter where you get that damn energy from!!!! /thread! :explode:

There are literally dozens of things that your body needs to survive, other than calories. Essential fatty acids, amino acids, vitamins, dietary minerals...all these are essential.

The body needs one thing and its called CALORIES which equals ENERGY to survive . doesn't matter where you get that damn energy from!!!! /thread! :explode:

There are literally dozens of things that your body needs to survive, other than calories. Essential fatty acids, amino acids, vitamins, dietary minerals...all these are essential.

Im pretty sure I wont die if I lived off animal protein and fats and disregard everything else . You cant tell me I will just drop dead one day because I have no carbs in my system .

I'm not saying that you would -- in fact, I've typed up several long posts in this thread stating the exact opposite. I was stating that your statement, "the body needs one thing and its called CALORIES", is incorrect. It needs a bunch of things. It just so happens that you can get all of those things without carbs.

The body needs one thing and its called CALORIES which equals ENERGY to survive . doesn't matter where you get that damn energy from!!!! /thread! :explode:

There are literally dozens of things that your body needs to survive, other than calories. Essential fatty acids, amino acids, vitamins, dietary minerals...all these are essential.

Im pretty sure I wont die if I lived off animal protein and fats and disregard everything else . You cant tell me I will just drop dead one day because I have no carbs in my system .

Ok, meat is good for protein, for Vitamin A & D, iron, and zinc, but I certainly prefer to add veggies and fruits to round out my micronutrients. I can't imagine eating only meat and fats. I would feel like crap, I think.

your body can not survive without sugar

Just out of curiosity, how soon would I die if I ended up on a desert Island with nothing but fish and seaweed to eat? I weigh about 220lb, just me and no other people to cannibalise?

your body can not survive without sugar

Just out of curiosity, how soon would I die if I ended up on a desert Island with nothing but fish and seaweed to eat? I weigh about 220lb, just me and no other people to cannibalise?

You will drop dead after your 500th fish meal on the 55th day because you will only have fish in your system . people , lets use some logic . You can survive off Zero carbs but its not wise at all to go that route . You will feel like death BUT you wont die lol