Ketogenic Diet anyone?
Options
Replies
-
Also a point that really annoyed me (the thing that made me respond), an expected lifespan is the same as an average lifespan. The expected value is = the mean.
Life expectancy has to be defined tightly, I assume you're talking about life expectancy at birth and as it's in the past about a cohort rather than a period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
They do appear to use mean, when median might be better IMO (the age 50% will reach).0 -
Oh, look, another fresh study...
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/pressReleases/2015/August/150806_qrb_hardy_et_al_paleo_diet.htmlA new study argues that carbohydrate consumption, particularly in the form of starch, was critical for the accelerated expansion of the human brain over the last million years...Hardy proposes that after cooking became widespread, the co-evolution of cooking and higher copy number of the salivary amylase (and possibly pancreatic amylase) genes increased the availability of pre-formed dietary glucose to the brain and fetus, which in turn, permitted the acceleration in brain size increase which occurred from around 800,000 years ago onwards.
Eating meat may have kick-started the evolution of bigger brains, but cooked starchy foods together with more salivary amylase genes made us smarter still.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/682587
I don't care how people choose to fuel themselves. If you want to be ketogenic, it's fine with me.
But there is no legitimate way to wrap that choice up in the flag of science.
Nor do reconstructive studies prove anything about the benefit of carbohydrates and starches in our diet. On the contrary, I would say: in today's world it becomes apparent that there is something like "too much of a once good thing" when it comes to carbohydrates.
0 -
And also, the "literature" people quote make it seem as if it either has to be "hunter - gatherer" or agriculture. But of course there was a long, long stretch of time when subsistence farming was of the "agro - pastoral" type. And in many parts of the world that is still the norm. Even in my own country (The Netherlands), which now has some very intensive crop farming and animal husbandry, agro-pastoral type farming existed well into the 20th century. In those societies, bread and wheat and sweet thing, fruit too, we're a luxury. We've forgotten how abundant our world of food has become in a very short stretch of time. Agriculture that can't depend on cheap oil looks very different!0
-
You may want to consider increasing your calories a bit. Eating under 1200 for someone with your stats is not recommended.0
-
Yes, I follow a LCHF diet The current theory of obesity is that it is mediated by insulin. People who are overweight are to a degree insulin resisitance and have too many carbs. Scientifically it makes sense. The new theory of heart disease is that it is a inflammatory process,. There has been NO study to date that shows that heart disease is caused by cholesterol. Ancel Keys study was flawed.
There are some really good youtube videos about Low carb High Fat and the resolution of diabetes--Dr. Sarah hallberg, Dr. Peter Attia, Dr. Jason Fung, and Dr. Eric Westman.
There is a low carb group on MFP--join us. The Low Carber daily Forum. Here is a very educational youtube video about this By Tim Noakes. His science is sound.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL5-9ZxamXc 0 -
I don't care how people choose to fuel themselves. If you want to be ketogenic, it's fine with me.
But there is no legitimate way to wrap that choice up in the flag of science.
Other opinions are available. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4271639/
"These results indicate that VLCKD may have more favorable changes in LBM, muscle mass, and body fatness as compared to a traditional western diet in resistance trained males."
There are other opinions on whether the earth is round, too.
Here's the bottom line for me - there are studies out the wazoo demonstrating decreased viability of offspring with ketogenic pregnancies. It's a basic tenet of evolutionary science that anything that damages our odds of surviving - like, for example, decreasing the viability of our offspring - is by definition unhealthier than the alternatives.
People can do and believe what they like - but it is incorrect to say science is on the side of ketogenic diets, outside some extremely narrow diagnostic conditions.
0 -
Oh, look, another fresh study...
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/pressReleases/2015/August/150806_qrb_hardy_et_al_paleo_diet.htmlA new study argues that carbohydrate consumption, particularly in the form of starch, was critical for the accelerated expansion of the human brain over the last million years...Hardy proposes that after cooking became widespread, the co-evolution of cooking and higher copy number of the salivary amylase (and possibly pancreatic amylase) genes increased the availability of pre-formed dietary glucose to the brain and fetus, which in turn, permitted the acceleration in brain size increase which occurred from around 800,000 years ago onwards.
Eating meat may have kick-started the evolution of bigger brains, but cooked starchy foods together with more salivary amylase genes made us smarter still.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/682587
I don't care how people choose to fuel themselves. If you want to be ketogenic, it's fine with me.
But there is no legitimate way to wrap that choice up in the flag of science.
Nor do reconstructive studies prove anything about the benefit of carbohydrates and starches in our diet. On the contrary, I would say: in today's world it becomes apparent that there is something like "too much of a once good thing" when it comes to carbohydrates.
Traditional diets that are high carb don't seem to be any less healthy than traditional diets that are lower carb (and no traditional diets are ketogenic, not even the Inuit--they would be for us, probably, but there seem to be adaptions that prevent it for those peoples actually on such environmentally low carb diets).
What is unhealthy is excess calories, lower activity and the overall food quality/choice within the western pattern diet, largely driven by abundance and the ability to create high cal foods inexpensively.
I do think that we probably need fewer carbs (often staple foods that served as a low cost source of calories) than in the past because we are less active on average (my grandfather probably ate a higher carb diet than I do, he also had a farm and was a ton more active in daily life), and have different issues now that food abundance, not scarcity is the basic environment.
None of this really has to do with carb percentage, though.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I do think that we probably need fewer carbs...
I wonder if this where people get confused. The SAD *does* have too many carbs - fat intake isn't too bad and protein intake is arguably marginal. But cutting half the carbs from SAD levels still leaves a diet with a LOT of carbs in it - it's not ketogenic or anywhere close.
Anyway....people will do what they want to do!
:drinker:
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Oh, look, another fresh study...
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/pressReleases/2015/August/150806_qrb_hardy_et_al_paleo_diet.htmlA new study argues that carbohydrate consumption, particularly in the form of starch, was critical for the accelerated expansion of the human brain over the last million years...Hardy proposes that after cooking became widespread, the co-evolution of cooking and higher copy number of the salivary amylase (and possibly pancreatic amylase) genes increased the availability of pre-formed dietary glucose to the brain and fetus, which in turn, permitted the acceleration in brain size increase which occurred from around 800,000 years ago onwards.
Eating meat may have kick-started the evolution of bigger brains, but cooked starchy foods together with more salivary amylase genes made us smarter still.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/682587
I don't care how people choose to fuel themselves. If you want to be ketogenic, it's fine with me.
But there is no legitimate way to wrap that choice up in the flag of science.
Nor do reconstructive studies prove anything about the benefit of carbohydrates and starches in our diet. On the contrary, I would say: in today's world it becomes apparent that there is something like "too much of a once good thing" when it comes to carbohydrates.
Traditional diets that are high carb don't seem to be any less healthy than traditional diets that are lower carb (and no traditional diets are ketogenic, not even the Inuit--they would be for us, probably, but there seem to be adaptions that prevent it for those peoples actually on such environmentally low carb diets).
What is unhealthy is excess calories, lower activity and the overall food quality/choice within the western pattern diet, largely driven by abundance and the ability to create high cal foods inexpensively.
I do think that we probably need fewer carbs (often staple foods that served as a low cost source of calories) than in the past because we are less active on average (my grandfather probably ate a higher carb diet than I do, he also had a farm and was a ton more active in daily life), and have different issues now that food abundance, not scarcity is the basic environment.
None of this really has to do with carb percentage, though.
I personally don't understand why. Some very high carb vegans are thriving and healthy, and some people with limited movement prefer a higher carb diet. In normal circumstances I don't understand the benefits of reducing carbs and increasing fat to compensate. You get little extra credit for having more fat than is needed to regulate body functions, just like you get little extra credit for increasing carbs beyond of what is needed to fuel activity and brain functions. Same goes for protein, once a person eats enough of it to sustain certain functions and activities.
It appears this is the age where carbs are evil, or sometimes masquerade in less threatening tiny little devil horns as "less important". There is no reason this should be the case. Any decision regarding any macronutrient or its importance should be dictated by individual needs, preferences, cultural influences...etc, not what is deemed trendy.0 -
Sigh. It depends on your metabolism. If you're insulin resistant, it's not wise to consume carbs a lot. I assume it makes sense why that is. The point is, that through "dietary culture", it's far easier nowadays to become insulin resistant, than it was even fifty years ago. If I want to regulate insulin to not spike, and if I can't up fats and/or protein, I can eat precious few calories. In fact, I was in this situation 2 years ago. I wish I knew then what I know now, or I wouldn't have embarked on the extreme calorie reduction I applied. One of the reasons why people with insulin resistance lose weight on a calorie restricted diet is because it may - in effect - be low carb.
What you are stating is very well for someone with an uncompromised metabolism, but it doesn't hold water if you're insulin resistant and/or have metabolic syndrome, or are pre-diabetic. (or want to impact cancer, or epilepsy or even Alzeheimer's disease) And that group is growing and growing.
Believe you me, eating the ketogenic way for me is a necessity and far from trendy.0 -
I don't care how people choose to fuel themselves. If you want to be ketogenic, it's fine with me.
But there is no legitimate way to wrap that choice up in the flag of science.
Other opinions are available. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4271639/
"These results indicate that VLCKD may have more favorable changes in LBM, muscle mass, and body fatness as compared to a traditional western diet in resistance trained males."
There are other opinions on whether the earth is round, too.
Here's the bottom line for me - there are studies out the wazoo demonstrating decreased viability of offspring with ketogenic pregnancies. It's a basic tenet of evolutionary science that anything that damages our odds of surviving - like, for example, decreasing the viability of our offspring - is by definition unhealthier than the alternatives.
People can do and believe what they like - but it is incorrect to say science is on the side of ketogenic diets, outside some extremely narrow diagnostic conditions.
Those studies tell you something about metabolism in women while they are pregnant, but precious little else. Don't cherry pick.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Oh, look, another fresh study...
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/pressReleases/2015/August/150806_qrb_hardy_et_al_paleo_diet.htmlA new study argues that carbohydrate consumption, particularly in the form of starch, was critical for the accelerated expansion of the human brain over the last million years...Hardy proposes that after cooking became widespread, the co-evolution of cooking and higher copy number of the salivary amylase (and possibly pancreatic amylase) genes increased the availability of pre-formed dietary glucose to the brain and fetus, which in turn, permitted the acceleration in brain size increase which occurred from around 800,000 years ago onwards.
Eating meat may have kick-started the evolution of bigger brains, but cooked starchy foods together with more salivary amylase genes made us smarter still.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/682587
I don't care how people choose to fuel themselves. If you want to be ketogenic, it's fine with me.
But there is no legitimate way to wrap that choice up in the flag of science.
Nor do reconstructive studies prove anything about the benefit of carbohydrates and starches in our diet. On the contrary, I would say: in today's world it becomes apparent that there is something like "too much of a once good thing" when it comes to carbohydrates.
Traditional diets that are high carb don't seem to be any less healthy than traditional diets that are lower carb (and no traditional diets are ketogenic, not even the Inuit--they would be for us, probably, but there seem to be adaptions that prevent it for those peoples actually on such environmentally low carb diets).
What is unhealthy is excess calories, lower activity and the overall food quality/choice within the western pattern diet, largely driven by abundance and the ability to create high cal foods inexpensively.
I do think that we probably need fewer carbs (often staple foods that served as a low cost source of calories) than in the past because we are less active on average (my grandfather probably ate a higher carb diet than I do, he also had a farm and was a ton more active in daily life), and have different issues now that food abundance, not scarcity is the basic environment.
None of this really has to do with carb percentage, though.
I personally don't understand why. Some very high carb vegans are thriving and healthy, and some people with limited movement prefer a higher carb diet. In normal circumstances I don't understand the benefits of reducing carbs and increasing fat to compensate. You get little extra credit for having more fat than is needed to regulate body functions, just like you get little extra credit for increasing carbs beyond of what is needed to fuel activity and brain functions. Same goes for protein, once a person eats enough of it to sustain certain functions and activities.
It appears this is the age where carbs are evil, or sometimes masquerade in less threatening tiny little devil horns as "less important". There is no reason this should be the case. Any decision regarding any macronutrient or its importance should be dictated by individual needs, preferences, cultural influences...etc, not what is deemed trendy.
I'm talking as a societal average. As for personal choices about macro ratios, I think a wide variety can work and it really depends on what someone likes and feels better on. I'm not saying carbs are evil at all, nor am I recommending reducing carbs and increasing fat. I'm saying that the main function of staple food carbs is to add calories at a reasonable price, and so that's a logical place to cut for many in our society who need to cut calories. An individual needs to do what works best for that individual, though. (The SAD includes way too much of all kinds of calories, and this idea that people who overeat eat, on average, too little fat seems obviously wrong to me too.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Oh, look, another fresh study...
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/pressReleases/2015/August/150806_qrb_hardy_et_al_paleo_diet.htmlA new study argues that carbohydrate consumption, particularly in the form of starch, was critical for the accelerated expansion of the human brain over the last million years...Hardy proposes that after cooking became widespread, the co-evolution of cooking and higher copy number of the salivary amylase (and possibly pancreatic amylase) genes increased the availability of pre-formed dietary glucose to the brain and fetus, which in turn, permitted the acceleration in brain size increase which occurred from around 800,000 years ago onwards.
Eating meat may have kick-started the evolution of bigger brains, but cooked starchy foods together with more salivary amylase genes made us smarter still.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/682587
I don't care how people choose to fuel themselves. If you want to be ketogenic, it's fine with me.
But there is no legitimate way to wrap that choice up in the flag of science.
Nor do reconstructive studies prove anything about the benefit of carbohydrates and starches in our diet. On the contrary, I would say: in today's world it becomes apparent that there is something like "too much of a once good thing" when it comes to carbohydrates.
Traditional diets that are high carb don't seem to be any less healthy than traditional diets that are lower carb (and no traditional diets are ketogenic, not even the Inuit--they would be for us, probably, but there seem to be adaptions that prevent it for those peoples actually on such environmentally low carb diets).
What is unhealthy is excess calories, lower activity and the overall food quality/choice within the western pattern diet, largely driven by abundance and the ability to create high cal foods inexpensively.
I do think that we probably need fewer carbs (often staple foods that served as a low cost source of calories) than in the past because we are less active on average (my grandfather probably ate a higher carb diet than I do, he also had a farm and was a ton more active in daily life), and have different issues now that food abundance, not scarcity is the basic environment.
None of this really has to do with carb percentage, though.
I personally don't understand why. Some very high carb vegans are thriving and healthy, and some people with limited movement prefer a higher carb diet. In normal circumstances I don't understand the benefits of reducing carbs and increasing fat to compensate. You get little extra credit for having more fat than is needed to regulate body functions, just like you get little extra credit for increasing carbs beyond of what is needed to fuel activity and brain functions. Same goes for protein, once a person eats enough of it to sustain certain functions and activities.
It appears this is the age where carbs are evil, or sometimes masquerade in less threatening tiny little devil horns as "less important". There is no reason this should be the case. Any decision regarding any macronutrient or its importance should be dictated by individual needs, preferences, cultural influences...etc, not what is deemed trendy.
I'm talking as a societal average. As for personal choices about macro ratios, I think a wide variety can work and it really depends on what someone likes and feels better on. I'm not saying carbs are evil at all, nor am I recommending reducing carbs and increasing fat. I'm saying that the main function of staple food carbs is to add calories at a reasonable price, and so that's a logical place to cut for many in our society who need to cut calories. An individual needs to do what works best for that individual, though. (The SAD includes way too much of all kinds of calories, and this idea that people who overeat eat, on average, too little fat seems obviously wrong to me too.)
Yes, thank you for clarifying. I appear to have misinterpreted what you said.0 -
(The SAD includes way too much of all kinds of calories, and this idea that people who overeat eat, on average, too little fat seems obviously wrong to me too.)
Personally, I think this is the other way round. If people with a certain metabolism start eating fat, they'll find they eat less. Certain people, who are insulin resistant will overeat on the standard diet and it will be very hard for them to reduce calories, while they consume carbohydrates to the level that the standard diet advises.0 -
Sigh. It depends on your metabolism. If you're insulin resistant, it's not wise to consume carbs a lot. I assume it makes sense why that is. The point is, that through "dietary culture", it's far easier nowadays to become insulin resistant, than it was even fifty years ago. If I want to regulate insulin to not spike, and if I can't up fats and/or protein, I can eat precious few calories. In fact, I was in this situation 2 years ago. I wish I knew then what I know now, or I wouldn't have embarked on the extreme calorie reduction I applied. One of the reasons why people with insulin resistance lose weight on a calorie restricted diet is because it may - in effect - be low carb.
What you are stating is very well for someone with an uncompromised metabolism, but it doesn't hold water if you're insulin resistant and/or have metabolic syndrome, or are pre-diabetic. (or want to impact cancer, or epilepsy or even Alzeheimer's disease) And that group is growing and growing.
Believe you me, eating the ketogenic way for me is a necessity and far from trendy.
I support your choice to follow a ketogenic diet, and I understand the way carbs affect insulin resistance. I was prediabetic on the very edge between prediabetes and full blown diabetes. I had to regulate carbs down to 40% of my intake (between 100 and 150 grams) to deal with it. It was needed for me as an individual. Once I lost a good amount of weight and carbs stopped causing my blood sugar and triglycerides to react in unfavorable ways I relaxed my grip on carbs to allow for more food variety and I can now handle nearly any percentage of carbs. The case you mentioned falls under the label "individualized" and you don't have to feel like you need to apologize for it. Your health conditions, your preferences, your choice. (although cancer claims and whatnot give a distinct "Mercola" scent).0 -
I find that it doesn't record monosaturated vegetable oil well. If you have that in your diet (olive oil, avocado), then you are eating something that would increase your good cholesterol and reduce your bad cholesterol. I think the diet your on is red flagged as dangerous by healthcare professionals. The reduction of carbs is perhaps too severe. I've reduced carbs to 100 grams and that includes them in veggies and fruits and I've lost 21 pounds in five weeks.
I think your fats are inline with the diet advertised on the dietdoctor.com but I don't think the carbs are.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Sigh. It depends on your metabolism. If you're insulin resistant, it's not wise to consume carbs a lot. I assume it makes sense why that is. The point is, that through "dietary culture", it's far easier nowadays to become insulin resistant, than it was even fifty years ago. If I want to regulate insulin to not spike, and if I can't up fats and/or protein, I can eat precious few calories. In fact, I was in this situation 2 years ago. I wish I knew then what I know now, or I wouldn't have embarked on the extreme calorie reduction I applied. One of the reasons why people with insulin resistance lose weight on a calorie restricted diet is because it may - in effect - be low carb.
What you are stating is very well for someone with an uncompromised metabolism, but it doesn't hold water if you're insulin resistant and/or have metabolic syndrome, or are pre-diabetic. (or want to impact cancer, or epilepsy or even Alzeheimer's disease) And that group is growing and growing.
Believe you me, eating the ketogenic way for me is a necessity and far from trendy.
I support your choice to follow a ketogenic diet, and I understand the way carbs affect insulin resistance. I was prediabetic on the very edge between prediabetes and full blown diabetes. I had to regulate carbs down to 40% of my intake (between 100 and 150 grams) to deal with it. It was needed for me as an individual. Once I lost a good amount of weight and carbs stopped causing my blood sugar and triglycerides to react in unfavorable ways I relaxed my grip on carbs to allow for more food variety and I can now handle nearly any percentage of carbs. The case you mentioned falls under the label "individualized" and you don't have to feel like you need to apologize for it. Your health conditions, your preferences, your choice. (although cancer claims and whatnot give a distinct "Mercola" scent).
The claims that VLC and LCHF diets can make certain type of tumors more receptive to therapy is sufficiently addressed in literature for me to have a go.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Sigh. It depends on your metabolism. If you're insulin resistant, it's not wise to consume carbs a lot. I assume it makes sense why that is. The point is, that through "dietary culture", it's far easier nowadays to become insulin resistant, than it was even fifty years ago. If I want to regulate insulin to not spike, and if I can't up fats and/or protein, I can eat precious few calories. In fact, I was in this situation 2 years ago. I wish I knew then what I know now, or I wouldn't have embarked on the extreme calorie reduction I applied. One of the reasons why people with insulin resistance lose weight on a calorie restricted diet is because it may - in effect - be low carb.
What you are stating is very well for someone with an uncompromised metabolism, but it doesn't hold water if you're insulin resistant and/or have metabolic syndrome, or are pre-diabetic. (or want to impact cancer, or epilepsy or even Alzeheimer's disease) And that group is growing and growing.
Believe you me, eating the ketogenic way for me is a necessity and far from trendy.
I support your choice to follow a ketogenic diet, and I understand the way carbs affect insulin resistance. I was prediabetic on the very edge between prediabetes and full blown diabetes. I had to regulate carbs down to 40% of my intake (between 100 and 150 grams) to deal with it. It was needed for me as an individual. Once I lost a good amount of weight and carbs stopped causing my blood sugar and triglycerides to react in unfavorable ways I relaxed my grip on carbs to allow for more food variety and I can now handle nearly any percentage of carbs. The case you mentioned falls under the label "individualized" and you don't have to feel like you need to apologize for it. Your health conditions, your preferences, your choice. (although cancer claims and whatnot give a distinct "Mercola" scent).
The claims that VLC and LCHF diets can make certain type of tumors more receptive to therapy is sufficiently addressed in literature for me to have a go.
There are similar claims for certain types of cancer being aggravated by the overconsumption of fat. "Cancer" is not one disease, and each cancer reacts differently. Most of the studies I found are on animals, and those that are on humans either involve complete water fasting (not LCHF) for a few days before chemo or just measures quality of life on the diet (which appears to have both positive and negative side effects). I have not found a good and stable body of research on the matter. Now for epilepsy on the other had, it's well documented.0 -
Just substitute the word carb with poison - you are just trying to get your body to handle a nutrient better - it doesn't make the nutrient good for you. There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. You don't need them to survive. If you're body needs glucose for those 3 bodily functions that it has (and I'm not being ridiculous here) it can get it from protein conversion. As long as you are burning ketones as fuel (and your body makes ketones from dietary and bodily fat) why would you want to increase carbs in any way?
"I support your choice to follow a ketogenic diet, and I understand the way poison affect insulin resistance. I was prediabetic on the very edge between prediabetes and full blown diabetes. I had to regulate poison down to 40% of my intake (between 100 and 150 grams) to deal with it. It was needed for me as an individual. Once I lost a good amount of weight and carbs stopped causing my blood sugar and triglycerides to react in unfavorable ways I relaxed my grip on poison to allow for more food variety and I can now handle nearly any percentage of poison."
I really don't understand this reasoning. If there is a substance out there that causes your body functions to trigger a negative response - why attempt to include it - in any amount? Like I said before - there is no such thing as an essential carb. Now I'm not saying that you should try and have none - goodness knows that vegetables have carbs in them - but why try to raise the amount in your diet? People can live happily on 0 carbs and a good norm is 5% of your daily numbers.0 -
RedDragonSpirit wrote: »Just substitute the word carb with poison - you are just trying to get your body to handle a nutrient better - it doesn't make the nutrient good for you. There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. You don't need them to survive. If you're body needs glucose for those 3 bodily functions that it has (and I'm not being ridiculous here) it can get it from protein conversion. As long as you are burning ketones as fuel (and your body makes ketones from dietary and bodily fat) why would you want to increase carbs in any way?
"I support your choice to follow a ketogenic diet, and I understand the way poison affect insulin resistance. I was prediabetic on the very edge between prediabetes and full blown diabetes. I had to regulate poison down to 40% of my intake (between 100 and 150 grams) to deal with it. It was needed for me as an individual. Once I lost a good amount of weight and carbs stopped causing my blood sugar and triglycerides to react in unfavorable ways I relaxed my grip on poison to allow for more food variety and I can now handle nearly any percentage of poison."
I really don't understand this reasoning. If there is a substance out there that causes your body functions to trigger a negative response - why attempt to include it - in any amount? Like I said before - there is no such thing as an essential carb. Now I'm not saying that you should try and have none - goodness knows that vegetables have carbs in them - but why try to raise the amount in your diet? People can live happily on 0 carbs and a good norm is 5% of your daily numbers.
strong 3rd post.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions