Low Carbs......how low can you go?

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.

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 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.

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?).

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.

Nope
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.

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!!!

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".

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.

This is not true. The evidence is overwhelming that carbs - grains, specifically - have been a large portion of our caloric intake going as far back as we can find.

Science actually DOES matter.

Indeed it does. Feel free to learn some.

Didnt understand any of it.

This is something that you should never do which is walk away from your doctor not understanding your medical condition. If you are to go home and follow through with a plan then you need to clearly understand the reason behind it. Are you in contact with a qualified dietitian with experience working with patients with your conditions?

You can go pretty low, but personally I find it counterproductive when the carbs you're cutting out are also cutting out great sources of nutrients. For example I'm currently averaing around 50g of net carbs at the moment, but in doing so I need to monitor the amount of vegetables I eat, and ensure only token amounts of starch-rich vegetables. Also to hit the 50g mark, the only fruit I eat is two big handfuls of berries each day.

To be honest, I just wanted to see how low I could reasonably go, and think I will loosen the restrictions soon, so I do not have to watch things so closely when it comes to vegetables, and so I can add a little bit more starch and a little bit more fruit. That will probably put me at the 100- 150g mark, which I am happy with, as maintaing the calorie deficit while eating healthy is all that matters to me as opposed to anything like ketosis.

The only concern I do have actually is after doing 50g for 4/ 5 weeks, that I wonder how much water weight regain I will face if I loosen the carb restriction to 100- 150g. I guess I'll see..

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.

This is not true. The evidence is overwhelming that carbs - grains, specifically - have been a large portion of our caloric intake going as far back as we can find.

Science actually DOES matter.

Indeed it does. Feel free to learn some.

When paleontologists studied Oetzi, the mummified "Alpine man" (he died violently about 5,300 years ago), they discovered a small amount of wild Emmer wheat in his gut but mostly they found residues of meat, berries and roots. Many paleontologists believe that the adoption of agriculture led to many nutritional deficiencies among the populations who adopted it--particularly among the children. When they examine ancient hunter-gatherer graveyards, they notice how few child skeletons are found in them. The skeletons of adults were also larger and have many fewer disease markers. When they examine the more recent graveyards in ancient, agriculture-based societies, they notice many, many more child skeletons, smaller stature among adults, and a large increase in disease markers.

The American Plains Indians did not experience famine until the U.S. government, in an attempt to wipe them out, killed off the buffalo herds. They did not eat grain but were quite healthy and strong.

Corn.
Small pox.

History. It's a good thing.

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.

Bump for bookmark.

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.

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?).

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.

Nope
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.

Um--you want to detail why that is relevant to the discussion at hand--other than being an attempt at a put-down?

I aim for 50 carbs per day. For the most part I'm able to eat around 30-40 net carbs per day. I did hit a plateau and realized that I was eating too much fruit so I cut the amount I eat down. I am by no means a low carb expert but this works for me and I'm liking the results. I do allow myself one "cheat" day per week but I'm to the point now that I don't even enjoy the "cheat" foods that I eat on those days. I may cut it down to once a month.

Wow. Folks. I am blown away by how many kind people responded. I've never seen this on any other chatroom. You're all terrific I confess I didnt understand everything said but you have all given me a lot to think about. However, clearly this is doable. One query remains which relates to measuring carbs. I should add that I am in Ireland and I dont think a distinction is made between net carbs and anything else. Usually it just says total carbs, andthen separates out the sugar and sometimes the fibre. Is there a list of carbs somewhere that is reasonably generic to all countries? Thanks again everyone

aa00;
Net Carbs is simply Total Carbs - (minus) Fiber.

There is an add on for MFP that will create a new column on your daily totals called "Net Carbs" but you can do it yourself by just subtracting Fiber.

Wow. Folks. I am blown away by how many kind people responded. I've never seen this on any other chatroom. You're all terrific I confess I didnt understand everything said but you have all given me a lot to think about. However, clearly this is doable. One query remains which relates to measuring carbs. I should add that I am in Ireland and I dont think a distinction is made between net carbs and anything else. Usually it just says total carbs, andthen separates out the sugar and sometimes the fibre. Is there a list of carbs somewhere that is reasonably generic to all countries? Thanks again everyone

The European food labels typically list only net carbs at the top. Fiber is already subtracted out for you. Unless you're eating an American product, count the total carbs listed on the package. I am not sure if this is the case for Ireland, but if you count the total carbs and don't worry about subtracting fiber, you'll never go over your carbs. A good way to tell if your country uses net or total carbs... try and find a product that is high in fiber and add the fiber and sugar together. If that amount is larger than the total carbs, they are using net carbs on the label.

For foreign made foods, I always just use the total carbs and assume fiber is taken out of that count already. America seems to be one of the few countries that includes fiber in the total carbs. Short answer, don't subtract the fiber from the total carbs unless you are 100% positive that total carbs includes fiber.

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.

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?).

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.

Nope
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.

Um--you want to detail why that is relevant to the discussion at hand--other than being an attempt at a put-down?

It was pointing out the fallacy in the statements that a) it's reasonable for us to eat as our ancestors did and b) your assertion that ancient people did not eat carbs.

It's absolutely relevant to the discussion.
Small pox wiped out MANY more native americans than buffalo hunting did, and the fact that you're 'hinting' that our ancestors didn't eat carbs is also misleading.

Eat the way you choose. Just don't make up justifications for it.