Ketogenic Diet anyone?
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
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 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »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.
I wish there was a little dog figure with a crooked head, with just blinking eyes.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.
Just no. To quote the mayo clinic
Myth: People with cancer shouldn't eat sugar, since it can cause cancer to grow faster.
Fact: Sugar doesn't make cancer grow faster. All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy. But giving more sugar to cancer cells doesn't speed their growth. Likewise, depriving cancer cells of sugar doesn't slow their growth.
This misconception may be based in part on a misunderstanding of positron emission tomography (PET) scans, which use a small amount of radioactive tracer — typically a form of glucose. All tissues in your body absorb some of this tracer, but tissues that are using more energy — including cancer cells — absorb greater amounts. For this reason, some people have concluded that cancer cells grow faster on sugar. But this isn't true.
However, there is some evidence that consuming large amounts of sugar is associated with an increased risk of certain cancers, including esophageal cancer. It can also lead to weight gain and increase the risk of obesity and diabetes, which may increase the risk of cancer.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »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.
I wish there was a little dog figure with a crooked head, with just blinking eyes.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.
Just no. To quote the mayo clinic
Myth: People with cancer shouldn't eat sugar, since it can cause cancer to grow faster.
Fact: Sugar doesn't make cancer grow faster. All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy. But giving more sugar to cancer cells doesn't speed their growth. Likewise, depriving cancer cells of sugar doesn't slow their growth.
This misconception may be based in part on a misunderstanding of positron emission tomography (PET) scans, which use a small amount of radioactive tracer — typically a form of glucose. All tissues in your body absorb some of this tracer, but tissues that are using more energy — including cancer cells — absorb greater amounts. For this reason, some people have concluded that cancer cells grow faster on sugar. But this isn't true.
However, there is some evidence that consuming large amounts of sugar is associated with an increased risk of certain cancers, including esophageal cancer. It can also lead to weight gain and increase the risk of obesity and diabetes, which may increase the risk of cancer.
It is a fact that cancers need glucose to grow. They do not burn fat for fuel like most of our body can, especially solid tumors like brain cancer. When one is in ketosis, there is not a lot of extra glucose to feed the tumors. This can help slow (some) tumor growth down, depending on the cancer.
Cancer cells absorb more tracer in a PET scan because they take more glucose than most other cells. Cancer cells have mitochondria that are wrong, and it affects how those cells make energy. Reducing glucose in the blood can help with some cancers, not all but with some.
http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v12/n10/full/nrc3365.html
http://nutritionaloncology.org/cancerCellMetabolism.html0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »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.
I wish there was a little dog figure with a crooked head, with just blinking eyes.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.
Just no. To quote the mayo clinic
Myth: People with cancer shouldn't eat sugar, since it can cause cancer to grow faster.
Fact: Sugar doesn't make cancer grow faster. All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy. But giving more sugar to cancer cells doesn't speed their growth. Likewise, depriving cancer cells of sugar doesn't slow their growth.
This misconception may be based in part on a misunderstanding of positron emission tomography (PET) scans, which use a small amount of radioactive tracer — typically a form of glucose. All tissues in your body absorb some of this tracer, but tissues that are using more energy — including cancer cells — absorb greater amounts. For this reason, some people have concluded that cancer cells grow faster on sugar. But this isn't true.
However, there is some evidence that consuming large amounts of sugar is associated with an increased risk of certain cancers, including esophageal cancer. It can also lead to weight gain and increase the risk of obesity and diabetes, which may increase the risk of cancer.
It is a fact that cancers need glucose to grow. They do not burn fat for fuel like most of our body can, especially solid tumors like brain cancer. When one is in ketosis, there is not a lot of extra glucose to feed the tumors. This can help slow (some) tumor growth down, depending on the cancer.
Cancer cells absorb more tracer in a PET scan because they take more glucose than most other cells. Cancer cells have mitochondria that are wrong, and it affects how those cells make energy. Reducing glucose in the blood can help with some cancers, not all but with some.
http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v12/n10/full/nrc3365.html
http://nutritionaloncology.org/cancerCellMetabolism.html
This second paragraph says what the answer for the mayo clinic says (in-more detail about the mitochondria). So all is good there, except for two important sentences:
Reducing glucose in the blood can help with some cancers, not all but with some
This can help slow (some) tumor growth down, depending on the cancer
These need some evidence. I was able to find a few articles on pubmed (most within this year) which give evidence to this claim, however given that most were that recent they should be taken with a grain of salt. Though I will point out that it is far less secure of a position than the absolute position that both you and terra seem to argue it to be.
Since this is not my field of expertise I could just be completely wrong ^_^0 -
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.
You seem to have gone that way yourself if we're worried about studies of pregnancy in rodents as the primary measure. An extermely narrow diagnostic condition in a specific species ?
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?"
http://www.ketotic.org/2015/04/what-about-sugars-in-breast-milk.html
http://www.ketotic.org/2014/01/babies-thrive-under-ketogenic-metabolism.html
probably contains the answer. If you're interested.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?"
http://www.ketotic.org/2015/04/what-about-sugars-in-breast-milk.html
http://www.ketotic.org/2014/01/babies-thrive-under-ketogenic-metabolism.html
probably contains the answer. If you're interested.
That second article says "babies are ketogenic, so you should be too". That's another time where that argument was used when it fits their hypothesis but not when it doesn't. The same way you could say that breast milk has lots of carbs for brain and other growth (according to their hypothesis), so carbs are good for your growth too.
Makes just as much sense.0 -
I don't have a horse in the baby nutrition race, but their articles are usually well referenced and hence helpful for research.
I can't see "babies are ketogenic, so you should be too" in the second link, FWIW.0 -
The exact quote is "One reason we think a ketogenic metabolism is normal and desirable, is that human newborns are in ketosis."
If they have other reasons, that's fine. But "because it's that way for babies" is not a particular good one, considering babies also don't have teeth, can't walk, talk, read, have a very fragile skeletal structure and crap their pants, and no one would say that's a reason why you think those things are normal and desirable in adults.0 -
PeachyCarol 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?
No, the question is, if carbs are so bad for us, why is the milk we produce for our offspring not carb-free?
Babies are doubling in weight every few months. If you want to do the same, eat a high carb diet just like they do.
Animals are fatted before slaughter by eating a high carb diet. If you want to get fat, do what they do.
Bears eat high carb fruits to excess in the fall, to put on a thick layer of fat for winter. etc etc..
Carbohydrates put your body into "winter is coming, lets bulk up" mode. It's an environmentally driven adaptation that most mammals have. In times of feast, when fruit are in season, our body bulks up with high energy density fat to survive the oncoming famine.
Nobody has told our genes that those of us eating carby foods all year round don't have a famine coming.
The science for eating low carb is there, and more than that, if you think about how humans, as mammals, worked outside of the last eyeblink of history where we had farms and houses and doritos, it doesn't even require science and reams and reams of nerdly studies. It's pretty damned self evident.
If you choose not to live as your body is expecting, that's fine. You're body's not expecting 8 hour desk jobs, or bungee jumping either. Those things are our choices and the reality of modern life. I just don't understand why it seems that eating like a human is so bafflingly rage inducing to folks.0 -
Sean_TheITGuy wrote: »PeachyCarol 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?
No, the question is, if carbs are so bad for us, why is the milk we produce for our offspring not carb-free?
Babies are doubling in weight every few months. If you want to do the same, eat a high carb diet just like they do.
Animals are fatted before slaughter by eating a high carb diet. If you want to get fat, do what they do.
Bears eat high carb fruits to excess in the fall, to put on a thick layer of fat for winter. etc etc..
Carbohydrates put your body into "winter is coming, lets bulk up" mode. It's an environmentally driven adaptation that most mammals have. In times of feast, when fruit are in season, our body bulks up with high energy density fat to survive the oncoming famine.
Nobody has told our genes that those of us eating carby foods all year round don't have a famine coming.
The science for eating low carb is there, and more than that, if you think about how humans, as mammals, worked outside of the last eyeblink of history where we had farms and houses and doritos, it doesn't even require science and reams and reams of nerdly studies. It's pretty damned self evident.
If you choose not to live as your body is expecting, that's fine. You're body's not expecting 8 hour desk jobs, or bungee jumping either. Those things are our choices and the reality of modern life. I just don't understand why it seems that eating like a human is so bafflingly rage inducing to folks.
Because a baby going from 3 to 6 kilos in a few months is the same as a grownass person going from 70 to 140, right?
"Animals before slaughter", cows are ruminants, they can digest plant fiber. They get a lot more calories out of grass and other carb foods than humans.
Humans don't hibernate, there is no "winter is coming" mode.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Sean_TheITGuy wrote: »PeachyCarol 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?
No, the question is, if carbs are so bad for us, why is the milk we produce for our offspring not carb-free?
Babies are doubling in weight every few months. If you want to do the same, eat a high carb diet just like they do.
Animals are fatted before slaughter by eating a high carb diet. If you want to get fat, do what they do.
Bears eat high carb fruits to excess in the fall, to put on a thick layer of fat for winter. etc etc..
Carbohydrates put your body into "winter is coming, lets bulk up" mode. It's an environmentally driven adaptation that most mammals have. In times of feast, when fruit are in season, our body bulks up with high energy density fat to survive the oncoming famine.
Nobody has told our genes that those of us eating carby foods all year round don't have a famine coming.
The science for eating low carb is there, and more than that, if you think about how humans, as mammals, worked outside of the last eyeblink of history where we had farms and houses and doritos, it doesn't even require science and reams and reams of nerdly studies. It's pretty damned self evident.
If you choose not to live as your body is expecting, that's fine. You're body's not expecting 8 hour desk jobs, or bungee jumping either. Those things are our choices and the reality of modern life. I just don't understand why it seems that eating like a human is so bafflingly rage inducing to folks.
Because a baby going from 3 to 6 kilos in a few months is the same as a grownass person going from 70 to 140, right?
No, let me use smaller words. The carbs are there in breast milk because babies bulk up quick, and carbs let them jack up their weight quickly. We, as adults, don't need to put on so much weight. That's the answer to the question of "if carbs are bad, why are they in breast milk". They are there because babies nutritional needs are vastly different to yours or mine. Carbs aren't bad, but they can let a human put of a lot of weight quickly.0 -
Funny thing, the link yarwell posted said those carbs aren't even used for putting on weight, but as building blocks for the brain, much like protein is used as building blocks for muscles.Sean_TheITGuy wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sean_TheITGuy wrote: »PeachyCarol 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?
No, the question is, if carbs are so bad for us, why is the milk we produce for our offspring not carb-free?
Babies are doubling in weight every few months. If you want to do the same, eat a high carb diet just like they do.
Animals are fatted before slaughter by eating a high carb diet. If you want to get fat, do what they do.
Bears eat high carb fruits to excess in the fall, to put on a thick layer of fat for winter. etc etc..
Carbohydrates put your body into "winter is coming, lets bulk up" mode. It's an environmentally driven adaptation that most mammals have. In times of feast, when fruit are in season, our body bulks up with high energy density fat to survive the oncoming famine.
Nobody has told our genes that those of us eating carby foods all year round don't have a famine coming.
The science for eating low carb is there, and more than that, if you think about how humans, as mammals, worked outside of the last eyeblink of history where we had farms and houses and doritos, it doesn't even require science and reams and reams of nerdly studies. It's pretty damned self evident.
If you choose not to live as your body is expecting, that's fine. You're body's not expecting 8 hour desk jobs, or bungee jumping either. Those things are our choices and the reality of modern life. I just don't understand why it seems that eating like a human is so bafflingly rage inducing to folks.
Because a baby going from 3 to 6 kilos in a few months is the same as a grownass person going from 70 to 140, right?
No, let me use smaller words. The carbs are there in breast milk because babies bulk up quick, and carbs let them jack up their weight quickly. We, as adults, don't need to put on so much weight. That's the answer to the question of "if carbs are bad, why are they in breast milk". They are there because babies nutritional needs are vastly different to yours or mine. Carbs aren't bad, but they can let a human put of a lot of weight quickly.
The one thing that makes you put on more weight is extra calories. You don't gain any faster from the same amount of energy in carbs compared to fats and protein. Looking at pictures of Inuit who barely have had any carbs in their diet but still are well and plump shows that if you're already going to go for "thinking about humans" instead of wanting to look at actual science.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »"Animals before slaughter", cows are ruminants, they can digest plant fiber. They get a lot more calories out of grass and other carb foods than humans.
Humans don't hibernate, there is no "winter is coming" mode.
"Winter is coming" is relevant if you're in a northerly (or southerly) climate where nothing grows for 6 months and the ambient temperature falls increasing your heat loss and/or requiring more work to keep warm (procuring fuel for the fire etc).
My introduction to nutrition was on a farm - animal feeds are labelled up with protein and oil content (good) and ash content (bad). That's it. As a kid I wondered what "the rest" was. No mention of calories either ;-)
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »"Animals before slaughter", cows are ruminants, they can digest plant fiber. They get a lot more calories out of grass and other carb foods than humans.
Humans don't hibernate, there is no "winter is coming" mode.
"Winter is coming" is relevant if you're in a northerly (or southerly) climate where nothing grows for 6 months and the ambient temperature falls increasing your heat loss and/or requiring more work to keep warm (procuring fuel for the fire etc).
My introduction to nutrition was on a farm - animal feeds are labelled up with protein and oil content (good) and ash content (bad). That's it. As a kid I wondered what "the rest" was. No mention of calories either ;-)
Winter is coming matters to bears, not to me. I live in Northern Canada, and I can tell you I don't need an extra spare tire to survive. You just put on a coat. And nothing grows here in the winter, but lots seems to grow at the supermarket. Nutritional availability doesn't change based on climate for people in North America. And procuring more fuel for the fire consists of turning up the thermostat for many, if not most, people. Even getting wood for the fire means walking to the shed and carrying in some pre cut and split wood. 10,000 , 1000, or even 100 years ago, putting on fat for winter made sense. Today, not so much.
This massive, rapid change in our available food, coupled with the brick wall of sedentary lifestyles we've hit is the reason we're seeing obesity, diabetes and heart disease skyrocket. Like a hamster, removed from it's natural environment, put in a cage and fed a seed mix, we are put in offices and schools, where we can't hunt, run, travel, fight, and gather. If our diet was as controlled as the hamsters, we'd be ok. But it's not.
Calorie restriction, or expenditure increase, or a combination of both, would keep us healthy. However many people find it very hard to control the calories they take in because they're always hungry. This is a side effect of our modern wheat, corn and potato based diet. You can leave healthily on high carbs, but most people find it hard to not overeat this way. That's the reason I go LCHF. I can eat until I'm satisfied, and I'm still at a sensible level of caloric intake. If someone is a lucky one who can eat bread and pasta and stuff and stop before overeating, awesome. I'm not, and I have a feeling many of the LCHFers are similar.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Sean_TheITGuy wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sean_TheITGuy wrote: »PeachyCarol 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?
No, the question is, if carbs are so bad for us, why is the milk we produce for our offspring not carb-free?
Babies are doubling in weight every few months. If you want to do the same, eat a high carb diet just like they do.
Animals are fatted before slaughter by eating a high carb diet. If you want to get fat, do what they do.
Bears eat high carb fruits to excess in the fall, to put on a thick layer of fat for winter. etc etc..
Carbohydrates put your body into "winter is coming, lets bulk up" mode. It's an environmentally driven adaptation that most mammals have. In times of feast, when fruit are in season, our body bulks up with high energy density fat to survive the oncoming famine.
Nobody has told our genes that those of us eating carby foods all year round don't have a famine coming.
The science for eating low carb is there, and more than that, if you think about how humans, as mammals, worked outside of the last eyeblink of history where we had farms and houses and doritos, it doesn't even require science and reams and reams of nerdly studies. It's pretty damned self evident.
If you choose not to live as your body is expecting, that's fine. You're body's not expecting 8 hour desk jobs, or bungee jumping either. Those things are our choices and the reality of modern life. I just don't understand why it seems that eating like a human is so bafflingly rage inducing to folks.
Because a baby going from 3 to 6 kilos in a few months is the same as a grownass person going from 70 to 140, right?
No, let me use smaller words. The carbs are there in breast milk because babies bulk up quick, and carbs let them jack up their weight quickly. We, as adults, don't need to put on so much weight. That's the answer to the question of "if carbs are bad, why are they in breast milk". They are there because babies nutritional needs are vastly different to yours or mine. Carbs aren't bad, but they can let a human put of a lot of weight quickly.
Phew. At least you aren't saying they are poison. That is the moment when I bring up breast milk since I doubt humans would create a substance to feed their offspring that is poisonous.
I don't think carbs are bad. In fact I know they aren't. I also don't think a low carb way of eating is bad. In fact I know it isn't. However, I keep coming back to the carbs can let a human put on weight quickly. While that may be true, what is always true is an excess of calories makes a human put on weight quickly.
I just addressed this, probably while you were responding. Calorie excess puts on weight. 100% true. No argument. You are right. Its basic physics and you are correct.
However, I can't eat high carb and stop before I go over on calories. I can eat low carb high fat and feel satiated, full, satisfied, and happy and not go over, because I reach this point after a smaller amount of food.
Caloric restriction on a moderate to high carb diet makes me crabby and constantly with a gnawing in the pit of my stomach, and I can only willpower my way through that for so long.
For example, I can eat a whole family sized bag of potato chips in an evening. No problem.
However if I considered eating the same amount (by weight, calories, however you want to do it) in cheese, whipping cream, fatty meats, butter, or any combination of above, I would probably be satisfied half way through, and more than a little sick if I forced myself to eat the whole thing.0 -
My husband and I did keto for two months before I joined MFP and our experience wasn't overall so positive.
Here is what I liked and dislike about it.
Positives:
- Great satiety
- You lose a lot of weight at first (even though it's water weight) and it's encouraging.
- Forces you to get creative with food and get out of the pasta and rice type of dishes
Negatives
-Irregular period
-Dehydration and constant need to consume a lot of salt
-constipation
-I was feeling constantly cold
-It takes two days to get back into ketosis after a cheat
-Hard to be invited over for a meal at friends
-Unrealistic long term for me. I love lattes and pastries too much.
Anyway, if it works for you and you do not feel deprived, than go for it. I still eat pretty moderate carbs on weekdays, mostly because I can have a bigger volume of food with vegetables.
I find that counting calories is much easier.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions