Low Carbs......how low can you go?
Options
Replies
-
It's a lot to take in when receiving news like this for the first time. A common reaction is to push back with "I can't live without x, y, and z" but you can. Give it a try and see how it works for you. I know it may seem unfathomable to enjoy foods without sugar in it but it is very possible. If you told me a year ago I would love steel cut oats, plain, with only blueberries added to it, I would've thought you were crazy. I wish you the best and hope you find success.0
-
the human body is designed to eat carbs
and yet you can live without them. Interesting.0 -
I don't do very low carb (although I used to sometimes) because I have negative health effects from it (muscle problems, low mineral levels, etc.). I have found a LOWER carb plan to be more effective for me. I just keep my carb intake to 100-150 grams (with the higher level on exercise days, and the lower level on rest days). It usually averages 115-125 grams of carb per day. BUT, and here are some important parameters I think. I restrict grain pretty much--just often a bit of oatmeal to get me started in the a.m. I eat no wheat at all and no sugary foods (no cupcakes for me--ever). I didn't set out to eliminate these foods as much as I set out to maximize nutrition. Starch and sugar don't do anything except provide calories---which is fine if you are expending a lot of calories, but you really just cannot afford them if you are sedentary--which I was at the beginning of my health quest (arthritis). After I lost about 40 pounds and could face myself in a bathing suit, I started doing water exercise in a class designed for people with musculo-skeletal problems. That did a LOT to help with the aches and pains. Contrary to popular belief, exercise makes aches and pains better (but it is advisable to do low impact exercise--swimming is fantastic).
After a while, you don't even crave desserts and such anymore. Contrary to what you might be told here, I'm quite okay without these "foods" for the rest of my life. It has been four years since I had a piece of cake or pie or wheat bread. They don't even tempt me anymore because my health has improved so much without them, that I would never willingly go back to eating them. I eat vegetables and have learned to love them--it helps if you cut out the wheat and sugar. That was somewhat of a transformation for me to realize one day that I actually liked vegetables now whereas before, I barely tolerated them. And fruit is a pleasure for me now whereas before, it had to be absolutely perfect for me to give it a try at all--and even then, I ate it because it was "good for me" not because I really liked it. Breaking the starch and sugar addiction, is difficult for the first few months but then it becomes easy and a whole new world of tastes opens up in the vegetables and fruits you consume as a result of eliminating starch and sugar. It really is a matter of what you want more--the temporary satisfaction of starch and sugar--or the much more permanent and, to my mind, better health that follows eliminating them.0 -
the human body is designed to eat carbs
There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Your body can produce all of the glucose it requires without eating any carbs. Just because the body burns them first doesn't make them the preferred fuel source. It is not very efficient for the main source of energy to be fast burning.0 -
I try to stay under 100 grams a day. That allows enough for veggies and a small serving of bread or pasta at one meal If I hadn't already used it of sweet potatoes or something else.0
-
I eat low carb. No bread, sugar, rice, pasta, etc. I do eat a lot of veggies, even those that are higher carb (carrots, beets) but stay away from starches. I limit fruit to higher fiber choices, so berries, apples, pears.
Changing the way I eat was the single BEST thing I ever did. I don't crave sweet things or carb-y things. I used to LOVE sushi. Now I can't stomach one piece, too much rice. Cutting sugar was hard, for like three days. The first day was easy, anyone can go a day without sweet things. Day two was HARD, I had to keep myself occupied to try to keep my mind off all the sweet things in the house. Day three was tough, too, but easier. After that I was fine. I'll have something sweet every once in a while, but mostly it just tastes sickly sweet and I can barely eat a bite or two.
I lost 50 lbs eating this way, no vigorous exercise besides a mile walk around my neighborhood pushing a stroller, in 6 months!
A good resource for me was "The F Factor". It's a book that supports a high fiber/high protein diet. It changed my life. Right now I aim for at least 40 grams of fiber every day.0 -
the human body is designed to eat carbs
Not to mention the fact that Mr_Knight's misstatement makes no sense from a logical point of view (but hey, since when are "logic" and "science" any part of most MFP "experts" dogma?).There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Your body can produce all of the glucose it requires without eating any carbs. Just because the body burns them first doesn't make them the preferred fuel source. It is not very efficient for the main source of energy to be fast burning.
It is true that our species "adapts" over time (a very looong time) to many conditions, including diet.
It's also true that if he's using "designed" to imply genetic adaptation to carb ingestion he's simply out to (a high carb) lunch.
For most of the first 99.5% of our existence (up to and including the early 20th century), carbs were a VERY minor percentage (if at all) of the diet for the vast majority of humanity.
Indeed up until the mid 1900's, carb restriction was the "generally accepted wisdom" of not only our Grandmothers but the medical community as well for weight reduction and diabetes prevention and control.
50 years, does not a genetic "adaptation", make.
Science actually DOES matter.0 -
The point of this post and every other post on this website is that you need to try it out and see what works for you. Personally, I don't want to live without carbs but I only lose weight when I reduce them so I shoot for around 150g a day. My recommendation is to track your carb intake and keep reducing it until you find a point where you are feeling better but not restricting yourself to the point it's driving you crazy. After all, this is supposed to be a lifestyle change so taking drastic measures (unless your life depends on it) will just make you give up sooner.0
-
Nopethe human body is designed to eat carbs
Not to mention the fact that Mr_Knight's misstatement makes no sense from a logical point of view (but hey, since when are "logic" and "science" any part of most MFP "experts" dogma?).There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Your body can produce all of the glucose it requires without eating any carbs. Just because the body burns them first doesn't make them the preferred fuel source. It is not very efficient for the main source of energy to be fast burning.
It is true that our species "adapts" over time (a very looong time) to many conditions, including diet.
It's also true that if he's using "designed" to imply genetic adaptation to carb ingestion he's simply out to (a high carb) lunch.
For most of the first 99.5% of our existence (up to and including the early 20th century), carbs were a VERY minor percentage (if at all) of the diet for the vast majority of humanity.
Indeed up until the mid 1900's, carb restriction was the "generally accepted wisdom" of not only our Grandmothers but the medical community as well for weight reduction and diabetes prevention and control.
50 years, does not a genetic "adaptation", make.
Science actually DOES matter.
Paleo man ate fruit, honey, vegetables, grains and tubers they also got about 35% of their energy intake from carbs.
http://www.gregdavis.ca/share/paleo-articles/academic/The Ancestral Human Diet by S. Boyd Eaton.pdf
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/paleo-diet
FTA:
"Proponents of the Paleo diet argue that our ancestors’ diets could not have included a lot of grains, legumes, or dairy foods. And they contend that the past 10,000 years of agriculture isn’t enough time to adapt to these “new” foods.
This argument is compelling but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
To begin with, recent studies in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, using more advanced analytical methods, have discovered that ancient humans may have begun eating grasses and cereals before the Paleolithic era even began — up to three or even four million years ago!
Further research has revealed granules of grains and cereal grasses on stone stools starting at least 105,000 years ago.
Meanwhile, grain granules on grinding tools from all over the world suggest that Paleolithic humans made a widespread practice of turning grains into flour as long as 30,000 years ago.
In other words, the idea that Paleolithic humans never ate grains and cereals appears to be a bit of an exaggeration."0 -
I agree that paleolithic man likely ate seeds and grains. Evolutionarily speaking, even 100k years doesn't seem to be enough time to physiologically adapt to it but whatever. I'm not a paleo person.0
-
the human body is designed to eat carbs
There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Your body can produce all of the glucose it requires without eating any carbs. Just because the body burns them first doesn't make them the preferred fuel source. It is not very efficient for the main source of energy to be fast burning.
THIS^^ I agree--there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Until widespread use of agriculture, there wasn't much in the way of carbohydrates to be had. Fat was the fuel source that was preferred by our more "primitive" ancestors. Using carbs as a fuel source is like burning paper in your fireplace. It burns fast and hot, (and there's nothing like it for boosting flagging blood glucose levels) but it doesn't last and must be replenished on a fairly continuous basis. Burning fat in the body can be compared to putting a nice big maple or oak log in the fireplace---burns slower and longer--and doesn't require constant stoking. There is very little storage in the human body for glycogen, but there is a LOT of storage of fat---that should tell us something about how vital fat is and how relatively unimportant carbohydrates are. The body is quite adept at converting fat to all of its energy requirements. From all of the reading I have done, it is suggested over and over that our high carbohydrate diets are responsible for a host of metabolic problems. And low fat diets make the problem worse.
My brother's medical history is illustrative. He drank at least a liter of soda pop a day for many years in addition to probably another liter of heavily-sweetened coffee. He was pretty active in his younger days, so he did not become obese. He was never huge but he eventually became a bit paunchy and it then it was discovered that he had Type II diabetes. His doctor, under the mistaken impression that obesity causes Type II, decided that my brother should go on a low-fat diet in order to lose weight (and allowed my brother to continue his soda and coffee addiction). My brother lost weight (his arms and legs became pathetically thin--he basically lost a large percentage of his lean body mass). Interestingly, he never lost much of his paunch. Here's the worst part--HIS DIABETES GOT WORSE. He is now insulin-dependent and in very poor health--too weak to do much except sit in the chair and watch TV (he took early retirement). Had he been placed on a low or even lower carb diet, I believe he would be much healthier today. Obesity DOES NOT cause Type II diabetes. It is our high carb diet (especially high sugar consumption) combined with our sedentary lifestyles that cause BOTH obesity and Type II diabetes. The rise in Type II diabetes and obesity perfectly tracks our consumption of sugar. In 1900, it is estimated that the average person ate 5 pounds of sugar per year (it was relatively expensive). Only after the price came down drastically after WWII, did the consumption expand greatly. It is now estimated to be around 150 pounds per person per year. What was viewed as high blood glucose back in the 1920s (when blood glucose began to be tracked in the population) is now "normal". Consistently high blood glucose levels do metabolic damage that eventually is impossible to reverse. Ultimately, under the constant onslaught of high blood glucose levels, the pancreas is damaged to the extent that the person becomes insulin-dependent and there simply is no coming back from that.0 -
Nopethe human body is designed to eat carbs
Not to mention the fact that Mr_Knight's misstatement makes no sense from a logical point of view (but hey, since when are "logic" and "science" any part of most MFP "experts" dogma?).There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Your body can produce all of the glucose it requires without eating any carbs. Just because the body burns them first doesn't make them the preferred fuel source. It is not very efficient for the main source of energy to be fast burning.
It is true that our species "adapts" over time (a very looong time) to many conditions, including diet.
It's also true that if he's using "designed" to imply genetic adaptation to carb ingestion he's simply out to (a high carb) lunch.
For most of the first 99.5% of our existence (up to and including the early 20th century), carbs were a VERY minor percentage (if at all) of the diet for the vast majority of humanity.
Indeed up until the mid 1900's, carb restriction was the "generally accepted wisdom" of not only our Grandmothers but the medical community as well for weight reduction and diabetes prevention and control.
50 years, does not a genetic "adaptation", make.
Science actually DOES matter.
Paleo man ate fruit, honey, vegetables, grains and tubers they also got about 35% of their energy intake from carbs.
http://www.gregdavis.ca/share/paleo-articles/academic/The Ancestral Human Diet by S. Boyd Eaton.pdf
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/paleo-diet
FTA:
"Proponents of the Paleo diet argue that our ancestors’ diets could not have included a lot of grains, legumes, or dairy foods. And they contend that the past 10,000 years of agriculture isn’t enough time to adapt to these “new” foods.
This argument is compelling but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
To begin with, recent studies in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, using more advanced analytical methods, have discovered that ancient humans may have begun eating grasses and cereals before the Paleolithic era even began — up to three or even four million years ago!
Further research has revealed granules of grains and cereal grasses on stone stools starting at least 105,000 years ago.
Meanwhile, grain granules on grinding tools from all over the world suggest that Paleolithic humans made a widespread practice of turning grains into flour as long as 30,000 years ago.
In other words, the idea that Paleolithic humans never ate grains and cereals appears to be a bit of an exaggeration."
But those foods like fruit (available only in season in the temperate regions, until they learned to dry small amounts for later consumption) honey, and grain were mostly luxuries (although highly prized). Even 35% of calories (especially because our ancestors were much more physically active) from those sources does not compare to the amount that people get today--especially those on low-fat diets. There is also the matter of "effective carbohydrates". Our more "primitive" ancestors had no way of getting refined carbohydrates on a continuing basis. Fiber is an important consideration. Their carbs would have come complete with a significant amount of fiber. I get about 25% of my calories from carbohydrates (but then, I'm trying to reverse the metabolic damage that has come from eating the recommended 50-60% of calories from carbohydrates).0 -
Unless there is a huge medical issue that required you to go low carb .. and with that I would get another medical opinion, it is just plain unnecessary. Not doing what your body needs is not normally a good idea unless there is some situation that requires it.
But .. this just makes me roll my eyes, oh and -> :yawn:0 -
the human body is designed to eat carbs
Not to mention the fact that Mr_Knight's misstatement makes no sense from a logical point of view (but hey, since when are "logic" and "science" any part of most MFP "experts" dogma?).There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Your body can produce all of the glucose it requires without eating any carbs. Just because the body burns them first doesn't make them the preferred fuel source. It is not very efficient for the main source of energy to be fast burning.
It is true that our species "adapts" over time (a very looong time) to many conditions, including diet.
It's also true that if he's using "designed" to imply genetic adaptation to carb ingestion he's simply out to (a high carb) lunch.
For most of the first 99.5% of our existence (up to and including the early 20th century), carbs were a VERY minor percentage (if at all) of the diet for the vast majority of humanity.
Indeed up until the mid 1900's, carb restriction was the "generally accepted wisdom" of not only our Grandmothers but the medical community as well for weight reduction and diabetes prevention and control.
50 years, does not a genetic "adaptation", make.
Science actually DOES matter.
The title of this thread is: "...how low can you go" - it seems that the OP has an understanding that certain health issues will occur by eliminating ALL carbs from the diet.
While PERHAPS THEORETICALLY we can EXIST without carbohydrates, most people prefer to be in good health. Foods that prevent illnesses like folate deficiency, scurvy and beriberi contain at least SOME carbs.
Common sense DOES matter.0 -
Nopethe human body is designed to eat carbs
Not to mention the fact that Mr_Knight's misstatement makes no sense from a logical point of view (but hey, since when are "logic" and "science" any part of most MFP "experts" dogma?).There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Your body can produce all of the glucose it requires without eating any carbs. Just because the body burns them first doesn't make them the preferred fuel source. It is not very efficient for the main source of energy to be fast burning.
It is true that our species "adapts" over time (a very looong time) to many conditions, including diet.
It's also true that if he's using "designed" to imply genetic adaptation to carb ingestion he's simply out to (a high carb) lunch.
For most of the first 99.5% of our existence (up to and including the early 20th century), carbs were a VERY minor percentage (if at all) of the diet for the vast majority of humanity.
Indeed up until the mid 1900's, carb restriction was the "generally accepted wisdom" of not only our Grandmothers but the medical community as well for weight reduction and diabetes prevention and control.
50 years, does not a genetic "adaptation", make.
Science actually DOES matter.
Paleo man ate fruit, honey, vegetables, grains and tubers they also got about 35% of their energy intake from carbs.
http://www.gregdavis.ca/share/paleo-articles/academic/The Ancestral Human Diet by S. Boyd Eaton.pdf
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/paleo-diet
FTA:
"Proponents of the Paleo diet argue that our ancestors’ diets could not have included a lot of grains, legumes, or dairy foods. And they contend that the past 10,000 years of agriculture isn’t enough time to adapt to these “new” foods.
This argument is compelling but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
To begin with, recent studies in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, using more advanced analytical methods, have discovered that ancient humans may have begun eating grasses and cereals before the Paleolithic era even began — up to three or even four million years ago!
Further research has revealed granules of grains and cereal grasses on stone stools starting at least 105,000 years ago.
Meanwhile, grain granules on grinding tools from all over the world suggest that Paleolithic humans made a widespread practice of turning grains into flour as long as 30,000 years ago.
In other words, the idea that Paleolithic humans never ate grains and cereals appears to be a bit of an exaggeration."
But those foods like fruit (available only in season in the temperate regions, until they learned to dry small amounts for later consumption) honey, and grain were mostly luxuries (although highly prized). Even 35% of calories (especially because our ancestors were much more physically active) from those sources does not compare to the amount that people get today--especially those on low-fat diets. There is also the matter of "effective carbohydrates". Our more "primitive" ancestors had no way of getting refined carbohydrates on a continuing basis. Fiber is an important consideration. Their carbs would have come complete with a significant amount of fiber. I get about 25% of my calories from carbohydrates (but then, I'm trying to reverse the metabolic damage that has come from eating the recommended 50-60% of calories from carbohydrates).
I don't know how to tell you this, but our ancestors ate stuff I know I don't: dung, the contents of their prey's stomach, plants that we don't eat, some that don't even exist anymore.
They didn't eat the delicious fruits in our produce section, but they ate carbs.
It's tough to be repulsed when you're really, really hungry.0 -
Unless there is a huge medical issue that required you to go low carb .. and with that I would get another medical opinion, it is just plain unnecessary. Not doing what your body needs is not normally a good idea unless there is some situation that requires it.
But .. this just makes me roll my eyes, oh and -> :yawn:
The body doesn't need a crapload of carbs to function. Mine's been functioning just fine on 20-60 net carbs.0 -
I never thought I would be eating low carb. I was not told to do this by a dr though. It happened over time by eliminating foods that I just didn't need anymore. It does sound like a major overhaul may not be the best for you to start. Begin by adding nutrient dense foods to your diet you do like. Look up recipes for the ones you don't. I'm not a huge fan of kale either, but kale chips are awesome and I can hide it in a smoothie. Add in the healthier foods to your diet, and start logging everything. Try to look at the upside of doing this to adjust your attitude. You can live without pain, You can live without medication if you are on any. You can have energy to do what you want to do everyday. All of this and more in possible, just not overnight. Divide it into small, manageable steps and do your best. Don't beat yourself up if you slip. Just get right back on track. Don't think about all the things you can't have, just think about having them in a different way. I have seen tons of low carb bread recipes, I have made low carb tortillas, and there are plenty of low carb recipes out there just waiting for you. You can do this, you are worth this!!!0
-
Unless there is a huge medical issue that required you to go low carb .. and with that I would get another medical opinion, it is just plain unnecessary. Not doing what your body needs is not normally a good idea unless there is some situation that requires it.
But .. this just makes me roll my eyes, oh and -> :yawn:
The body doesn't need a crapload of carbs to function. Mine's been functioning just fine on 20-60 net carbs.
Exactly. In fact my body functions better than it has since high school. Which was a darn long time ago.0 -
the human body is designed to eat carbs
and yet you can live without them. Interesting.
We are multifuel vehicles - the body can live without a lot of things that it is designed to eat.
The question isn't "can" - the question is "should".0 -
It is not very efficient for the main source of energy to be fast burning.
It is if you're working hard.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 989 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions