Have you tried GLP1 medications and found it didn't work for you? We'd like to hear about your experiences, what you tried, why it didn't work and how you're doing now. Click here to tell us your story
Ketogenic Diet anyone?
Replies
-
If carbs are "poison", then why is human breast milk about 30% carbs?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.0 -
If carbs aren't considered essential (or are to be laughably considered poison), and I agree that as adults we don't need them because we can synthesize needed glycogen from other macronutrients (but who's to say that this is a desirable state, I don't know where this notion comes from in the first place)... I just have one quick question...
Can anyone explain away the macro-composition of human breast milk?0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »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.
I know all that, sadly. The only cancers where carbohydrate restriction does seem to have an effect are brain cancers (surprise surprise!)
the fasting before chemo is a completely different thing. it does work though.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »If carbs aren't considered essential (or are to be laughably considered poison), and I agree that as adults we don't need them because we can synthesize needed glycogen from other macronutrients (but who's to say that this is a desirable state, I don't know where this notion comes from in the first place)... I just have one quick question...
Can anyone explain away the macro-composition of human breast milk?
Are you consuming human breast milk now?
0 -
The question is "If carbs are supposed to be not good or even bad for you, why is the food our body produces for our offspring not carb free?"PeachyCarol wrote: »If carbs aren't considered essential (or are to be laughably considered poison), and I agree that as adults we don't need them because we can synthesize needed glycogen from other macronutrients (but who's to say that this is a desirable state, I don't know where this notion comes from in the first place)... I just have one quick question...
Can anyone explain away the macro-composition of human breast milk?
Are you consuming human breast milk now?
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »If carbs aren't considered essential (or are to be laughably considered poison), and I agree that as adults we don't need them because we can synthesize needed glycogen from other macronutrients (but who's to say that this is a desirable state, I don't know where this notion comes from in the first place)... I just have one quick question...
Can anyone explain away the macro-composition of human breast milk?
Are you consuming human breast milk now?
Not enough protein for MFP.
Google reveals the Paleo school of thought on breast milk (I have no clue if this is accurate or not).
"Composition of human breast milk: Human breast milk is 39% carbohydrates, 54% fat and 7% protein. The brain is the main organ in the body that needs glucose and infants need much more energy to the brain than adults so this is why the carbohydrate fraction of milk is probably higher than the adult’s optimal need. What’s interesting in the macronutrient ratios of human milk is the high fat and low protein content."
http://paleoleap.com/question-of-macronutrient-ratios/
"Not only human breast milk, but the milk of all species of mammals consists of about:
10-20% Protein
50% Fats
25-40% Carbohydrate
For many, this fact alone is be enough to make them question the logic of a “low fat” diet, and we tend to agree.. You may notice that the carbohydrate percentage is a bit higher than the composition of the human body like we just discussed… but breast milk isn’t intended for adult humans.. it’s been designed specifically for babies.
While we can certainly use the nutritional make-up of breast milk in the quest to determine optimal macronutrient ratios.. There are a few key points that need to be taken into consideration.
In infancy, humans have ridiculously large brains compared to body size… The infant brain is about 10% of total body weight, and more importantly, it accounts for about 75% of total calorie consumption. By comparison, the brain of an adult human accounts for about 2% of total body weight and consumes about 25% of all available calories. Big difference.
What this tells us is that an infant’s needs for carbohydrates is going to be much higher than that of an adult’s, because the brain primarily uses carbohydrates for fuel, and apparently babies are all brain and no body."
http://paleoiq.com/macronutrient-ratios/
0 -
How come they take breast milk's fat content as a sign that high fat is good, but say the opposite about the carbs in it?AlabasterVerve wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »If carbs aren't considered essential (or are to be laughably considered poison), and I agree that as adults we don't need them because we can synthesize needed glycogen from other macronutrients (but who's to say that this is a desirable state, I don't know where this notion comes from in the first place)... I just have one quick question...
Can anyone explain away the macro-composition of human breast milk?
Are you consuming human breast milk now?
Not enough protein for MFP. Google reveals the Paleo school of thought on breast milk (I have no clue if this is accurate or not).
"Composition of human breast milk: Human breast milk is 39% carbohydrates, 54% fat and 7% protein. The brain is the main organ in the body that needs glucose and infants need much more energy to the brain than adults so this is why the carbohydrate fraction of milk is probably higher than the adult’s optimal need. What’s interesting in the macronutrient ratios of human milk is the high fat and low protein content."
http://paleoleap.com/question-of-macronutrient-ratios/
"Not only human breast milk, but the milk of all species of mammals consists of about:
10-20% Protein
50% Fats
25-40% Carbohydrate
For many, this fact alone is be enough to make them question the logic of a “low fat” diet, and we tend to agree.. You may notice that the carbohydrate percentage is a bit higher than the composition of the human body like we just discussed… but breast milk isn’t intended for adult humans.. it’s been designed specifically for babies.
While we can certainly use the nutritional make-up of breast milk in the quest to determine optimal macronutrient ratios.. There are a few key points that need to be taken into consideration.
In infancy, humans have ridiculously large brains compared to body size… The infant brain is about 10% of total body weight, and more importantly, it accounts for about 75% of total calorie consumption. By comparison, the brain of an adult human accounts for about 2% of total body weight and consumes about 25% of all available calories. Big difference.
What this tells us is that an infant’s needs for carbohydrates is going to be much higher than that of an adult’s, because the brain primarily uses carbohydrates for fuel, and apparently babies are all brain and no body."
http://paleoiq.com/macronutrient-ratios/
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
The question is "If carbs are supposed to be not good or even bad for you, why is the food our body produces for our offspring not carb free?"PeachyCarol wrote: »If carbs aren't considered essential (or are to be laughably considered poison), and I agree that as adults we don't need them because we can synthesize needed glycogen from other macronutrients (but who's to say that this is a desirable state, I don't know where this notion comes from in the first place)... I just have one quick question...
Can anyone explain away the macro-composition of human breast milk?
Are you consuming human breast milk now?
Here's another good one:
"In a world where carbs are bad- shouldn't 40% ALWAYS be better than 60%? And when it's not: hypothesis over." --Ketosis is a hack: here’s why
ETA:
"How come they take breast milk's fat content as a sign that high fat is good, but say the opposite about the carbs in it?"
Answer: Dunno.
0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »
If carbs are "poison", then why is human breast milk about 30% carbs?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.
Boom.
I can accept the argument that as humans we don't "need" carbs as it isn't an essential macronutrient, however the idea that it is poison is so laughable, it doesn't warrant a response. Your response highlights why it is so absurd. The human body would not create a substance to feed it offspring that was full of 30% poison.
My thoughts exactly!
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
The question is "If carbs are supposed to be not good or even bad for you, why is the food our body produces for our offspring not carb free?"PeachyCarol wrote: »If carbs aren't considered essential (or are to be laughably considered poison), and I agree that as adults we don't need them because we can synthesize needed glycogen from other macronutrients (but who's to say that this is a desirable state, I don't know where this notion comes from in the first place)... I just have one quick question...
Can anyone explain away the macro-composition of human breast milk?
Are you consuming human breast milk now?
Here's another good one:
"In a world where carbs are bad- shouldn't 40% ALWAYS be better than 60%? And when it's not: hypothesis over." --Ketosis is a hack: here’s why
ETA:
"How come they take breast milk's fat content as a sign that high fat is good, but say the opposite about the carbs in it?"
Answer: Dunno.
1) By definition, a lower dose of a poison does less damage than a high dose. So if someone's hypothesis is that "Carbs are poison" then a lower dose would always do less damage, and thus be "better", than a higher one.
E.g. a high dose of methanol is gonna kill you, a lower dose makes you blind and the trace amounts in alcoholic beverages don't affect you at all.
2) My guess would be because they're lchf and are using whatever they can find that even slightly might mean they're right.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »If carbs aren't considered essential (or are to be laughably considered poison), and I agree that as adults we don't need them because we can synthesize needed glycogen from other macronutrients (but who's to say that this is a desirable state, I don't know where this notion comes from in the first place)... I just have one quick question...
Can anyone explain away the macro-composition of human breast milk?
Are you consuming human breast milk now?
No, the question is, if carbs are so bad for us, why is the milk we produce for our offspring not carb-free?
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »If carbs aren't considered essential (or are to be laughably considered poison), and I agree that as adults we don't need them because we can synthesize needed glycogen from other macronutrients (but who's to say that this is a desirable state, I don't know where this notion comes from in the first place)... I just have one quick question...
Can anyone explain away the macro-composition of human breast milk?
Are you consuming human breast milk now?
Not enough protein for MFP. Google reveals the Paleo school of thought on breast milk (I have no clue if this is accurate or not).
"Composition of human breast milk: Human breast milk is 39% carbohydrates, 54% fat and 7% protein. The brain is the main organ in the body that needs glucose and infants need much more energy to the brain than adults so this is why the carbohydrate fraction of milk is probably higher than the adult’s optimal need. What’s interesting in the macronutrient ratios of human milk is the high fat and low protein content."
http://paleoleap.com/question-of-macronutrient-ratios/
"Not only human breast milk, but the milk of all species of mammals consists of about:
10-20% Protein
50% Fats
25-40% Carbohydrate
For many, this fact alone is be enough to make them question the logic of a “low fat” diet, and we tend to agree.. You may notice that the carbohydrate percentage is a bit higher than the composition of the human body like we just discussed… but breast milk isn’t intended for adult humans.. it’s been designed specifically for babies.
While we can certainly use the nutritional make-up of breast milk in the quest to determine optimal macronutrient ratios.. There are a few key points that need to be taken into consideration.
In infancy, humans have ridiculously large brains compared to body size… The infant brain is about 10% of total body weight, and more importantly, it accounts for about 75% of total calorie consumption. By comparison, the brain of an adult human accounts for about 2% of total body weight and consumes about 25% of all available calories. Big difference.
What this tells us is that an infant’s needs for carbohydrates is going to be much higher than that of an adult’s, because the brain primarily uses carbohydrates for fuel, and apparently babies are all brain and no body."
http://paleoiq.com/macronutrient-ratios/
Notice though, that there's a comparison in that article between more and less carbohydrates.
Not some and NONE.
That's the point I'm arguing against.
It's also... very convenient of them to acknowledge fat = good, but wave away carbs. LOL.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »t's also funny how you're calling it a poison but acknowledging your body makes it itself for the bodily functions that absolutely need it.
Yep. Ironic.0 -
http://americanpregnancy.org/first-year-of-life/whats-in-breastmilk/
Carbohydrates (in breast milk)
Lactose is the primary carbohydrate found in human milk. It accounts for approximately 40% of the total calories provided by breast milk. Lactose helps to decrease the amount of unhealthy bacteria in the stomach, which improves the absorption of calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium. It helps to fight disease and promotes the growth of healthy bacteria in the stomach.
According to this, the lactose in breast milk is heapful in promoting good bacteria.
More: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/science/03milk.html?_r=0
Most infants have not had time to develop autoimmune problems, glucose loving cancers, or insulin resistance. The lactose in breast milk is not a bad thing for them. Arguing that adults need carbs because infants ate 30-40% carbs in their breast milk seems like a nonsensical argument. Aren't over 2/3 of people (over 90% in Asian populations) lactose intolerant? Breast milk is not meant for adults so why argue its merits for us?
Besides many people who eat low carb eat high fat dairy products like cheese and cream. While breast milk is not as high in fat as whipping cream, it's not exactly skim either.0 -
http://americanpregnancy.org/first-year-of-life/whats-in-breastmilk/
Carbohydrates (in breast milk)
Lactose is the primary carbohydrate found in human milk. It accounts for approximately 40% of the total calories provided by breast milk. Lactose helps to decrease the amount of unhealthy bacteria in the stomach, which improves the absorption of calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium. It helps to fight disease and promotes the growth of healthy bacteria in the stomach.
According to this, the lactose in breast milk is heapful in promoting good bacteria.
More: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/science/03milk.html?_r=0
Most infants have not had time to develop autoimmune problems, glucose loving cancers, or insulin resistance. The lactose in breast milk is not a bad thing for them. Arguing that adults need carbs because infants ate 30-40% carbs in their breast milk seems like a nonsensical argument. Aren't over 2/3 of people (over 90% in Asian populations) lactose intolerant? Breast milk is not meant for adults so why argue its merits for us?
Besides many people who eat low carb eat high fat dairy products like cheese and cream. While breast milk is not as high in fat as whipping cream, it's not exactly skim either.
Sorry, but "Glucose loving cancers?" Wtf?0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »http://americanpregnancy.org/first-year-of-life/whats-in-breastmilk/
Carbohydrates (in breast milk)
Lactose is the primary carbohydrate found in human milk. It accounts for approximately 40% of the total calories provided by breast milk. Lactose helps to decrease the amount of unhealthy bacteria in the stomach, which improves the absorption of calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium. It helps to fight disease and promotes the growth of healthy bacteria in the stomach.
According to this, the lactose in breast milk is heapful in promoting good bacteria.
More: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/science/03milk.html?_r=0
Most infants have not had time to develop autoimmune problems, glucose loving cancers, or insulin resistance. The lactose in breast milk is not a bad thing for them. Arguing that adults need carbs because infants ate 30-40% carbs in their breast milk seems like a nonsensical argument. Aren't over 2/3 of people (over 90% in Asian populations) lactose intolerant? Breast milk is not meant for adults so why argue its merits for us?
Besides many people who eat low carb eat high fat dairy products like cheese and cream. While breast milk is not as high in fat as whipping cream, it's not exactly skim either.
Sorry, but "Glucose loving cancers?" Wtf?
Yes, the ketogenic diet is reversing cancer http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/2012/december/starving-cancer-ketogenic-diet-a-key-to-recovery/
It is odd though, when someone using the ketogenic diet dies from cancer. IDK seems people are reaching for anything to provide an answer.
0 -
http://americanpregnancy.org/first-year-of-life/whats-in-breastmilk/
Carbohydrates (in breast milk)
Lactose is the primary carbohydrate found in human milk. It accounts for approximately 40% of the total calories provided by breast milk. Lactose helps to decrease the amount of unhealthy bacteria in the stomach, which improves the absorption of calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium. It helps to fight disease and promotes the growth of healthy bacteria in the stomach.
According to this, the lactose in breast milk is heapful in promoting good bacteria.
More: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/science/03milk.html?_r=0
Most infants have not had time to develop autoimmune problems, glucose loving cancers, or insulin resistance. The lactose in breast milk is not a bad thing for them. Arguing that adults need carbs because infants ate 30-40% carbs in their breast milk seems like a nonsensical argument. Aren't over 2/3 of people (over 90% in Asian populations) lactose intolerant? Breast milk is not meant for adults so why argue its merits for us?
Besides many people who eat low carb eat high fat dairy products like cheese and cream. While breast milk is not as high in fat as whipping cream, it's not exactly skim either.
But arguing that adults should eat so much fat just because that much fat is in breast milk it's no less nonsensical? Or did i miss a part of everything?0 -
What does your doctor say?Hannahlukacs wrote:I'm wondering whether anyone is currently on a Ketogenic diet? And if so, in terms of cholesterol, is it normal for it to be very high when looking at the nutrients on the app?
...
Does the keto diet have any negative effects against cholesterol levels? I don't want to be doing this diet if it is going to have any negative effects such as heart disease, diabetes etc?!
Because outside of a few metabolic disorders there's no reason to do such a radical diet.
And yes, if you're eating lots of meat & animal products you'll likely have high cholesterol.
.
Nope.My goals for this diet are as follows:
Carbs: 14g (5%)
Protein 69g (25%)
Fat 86g (70%)
Does this sound reasonable?
Even without the skewed macros, that's waaaay below a healthy calorie level.
Women of average height (which you are, if not a bit tall) shouldn't go below 1200 unless their
doctor is monitoring them & says it's OK.
56 cal carbs
276 cal protein
774 cal fat
1106 calories
Here's a table which explains the healthy macro ranges, from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/1/1/T1.expansion.html
carbs, 45 - 65% of calories (4 cal per gram)
fat, 20 - 35% of calories (9 cal per gram)
protein, 10 - 35% of calories (4 cal per gram)
This calculator from the Baylor College of Medicine will tell you not only your BMI, but how many
servings of various foods to eat to maintain that weight.
If you enter your healthy goal weight, this will help you plan your food intake.
https://www.bcm.edu/cnrc-apps/healthyeatingcalculator/eatingCal.html
For a 23yo female, at 145 lb (which is the middle of the healthy weight range), if you're INACTIVE
you would need about 1750 cal/day to maintain that healthy weight.
If you wanted to lose a little, you could aim for 1500 cal/day. That should give you 1/2 lb per
week, which is actually a bit fast.
So using 1500 cal/day, and the healthy macro % given by the AJCN...
carbs 675 - 975 cal (169-244 g)
fat 300 - 525 cal (33 - 58 g)
protein 150 - 525 cal (38 - 131 g)
.
You're currently 158 lb, say you want to be 137.I'm 5ft 9, and weigh 11.3 stone
Wanting to lose 21 lbs
A healthy weight range for your height is 125 - 165.
So yes, you could still be at a healthy weight if you lost a little weight.
But it's going to go slowly, and you shouldn't do anything drastic (like keto, or aiming for losing
more than maybe 1 lb per month).
.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »http://americanpregnancy.org/first-year-of-life/whats-in-breastmilk/
Carbohydrates (in breast milk)
Lactose is the primary carbohydrate found in human milk. It accounts for approximately 40% of the total calories provided by breast milk. Lactose helps to decrease the amount of unhealthy bacteria in the stomach, which improves the absorption of calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium. It helps to fight disease and promotes the growth of healthy bacteria in the stomach.
According to this, the lactose in breast milk is heapful in promoting good bacteria.
More: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/science/03milk.html?_r=0
Most infants have not had time to develop autoimmune problems, glucose loving cancers, or insulin resistance. The lactose in breast milk is not a bad thing for them. Arguing that adults need carbs because infants ate 30-40% carbs in their breast milk seems like a nonsensical argument. Aren't over 2/3 of people (over 90% in Asian populations) lactose intolerant? Breast milk is not meant for adults so why argue its merits for us?
Besides many people who eat low carb eat high fat dairy products like cheese and cream. While breast milk is not as high in fat as whipping cream, it's not exactly skim either.
Sorry, but "Glucose loving cancers?" Wtf?
Most cancers love glucose. It is their main food. That's how a PET scan works to detect cancer, the areas that are lit up, high with sugar is where the cancer is.
Some cancers, like brain cancer, can be slowed, or even reversed, by starving the cancer of it's food - glucose.0 -
Blueseraphchaos wrote: »http://americanpregnancy.org/first-year-of-life/whats-in-breastmilk/
Carbohydrates (in breast milk)
Lactose is the primary carbohydrate found in human milk. It accounts for approximately 40% of the total calories provided by breast milk. Lactose helps to decrease the amount of unhealthy bacteria in the stomach, which improves the absorption of calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium. It helps to fight disease and promotes the growth of healthy bacteria in the stomach.
According to this, the lactose in breast milk is heapful in promoting good bacteria.
More: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/science/03milk.html?_r=0
Most infants have not had time to develop autoimmune problems, glucose loving cancers, or insulin resistance. The lactose in breast milk is not a bad thing for them. Arguing that adults need carbs because infants ate 30-40% carbs in their breast milk seems like a nonsensical argument. Aren't over 2/3 of people (over 90% in Asian populations) lactose intolerant? Breast milk is not meant for adults so why argue its merits for us?
Besides many people who eat low carb eat high fat dairy products like cheese and cream. While breast milk is not as high in fat as whipping cream, it's not exactly skim either.
But arguing that adults should eat so much fat just because that much fat is in breast milk it's no less nonsensical? Or did i miss a part of everything?
I don't believe that I did argue that people should eat so much fat. I just pointed out that babies aren't negatively affected by lactose like many adults are, and that breast milk lactose is not primarily for energy. Lactose (breast milk) is not essential for adult health. The only reason I can eat (cow) cream and cheese is because they are lactose free.
Fat is essential to life. We need fat. Some bodily systems work better when using fats, and our body can easily make the glucose needed for the parts that need glucose (brain, RBCs, etc). I've read some scientists and doctors argue that fat is in fact the primary energy source but it is forced to stop burning fat when carbs are eaten in order to clear the sugar (glucose) from the blood before toxic acidic levels are reached. I know of no health problems caused by eating a fat heavy (calorie appropriate) diet (beyond bothering pre-existing gout) but I know eating carbs, especially sugars, exacerbates autoimmune problems, heart disease, diabetes, PCOS, dementia and feeds some cancers so they grow quickly, among other problems...
I think low carb is a healthy way to eat and not dangerous or miserable, as some people seem to think. I like the food, love not having sugar cravings, have more energy and feel healthier, better blood glucose levels, my skin cleared up and my hair is thickening, and I am easily losing weight on a caloric deficit without feeling deprived or hungry. I think eating LCHF is quite amazing for me and wish I'd discovered it 20 years earlier.
I hope people will learn that skipping many carbs will not hurt them, and may benefit a large minority. It's just another safe WOE that benefits some people.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 413 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions