Could you spend a day without any sugar?
Replies
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »This was after just a quick look through...
Studies/articles mentioning the need for supplementation:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/7253814_Mondino_Foundation._The_ketogenic_diet_From_molecular_mechanisms_to_clinical_effects
http://jcn.sagepub.com/content/16/9/633.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01827.x/full
More are behind pay walls but some of the text can be seen when you do a search.
Here are two showing deficiencies found:
http://bjo.bmj.com/content/63/3/191.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1528-1157.2003.26102.x/full
To address the two articles with deficiencies found, the first article where the two patients were diagnosed with optic neuropathy, both sets of parents in both case studies admitted that they were not giving the children the prescribed vitamin and mineral supplements. While this does support the claim that the ketogenic diet is lacking in some nutrients, it doesn't provide evidence that people who do keto diets and are obtaining the proper nutrients are at risk.
In the second article, the patient was found to be deficient in selenium, which led to a dilated cardiomyopathy. But later in the article, it states that "Dietary selenium is found in the highest concentrations in meat and seafood," which would be staples of the keto diet. It also states that "Assessment of selenium status is difficult because no optimal method is known. Dietary assessment is inaccurate, and selenium content depends on where the food was grown (soil content), which is usually unknown," which indicates that selenium deficiency is not unique to a keto diet and could occur even in people who eat a diet rich in grains and veggies simply based on location.
It is disappointing that most of the research around keto diets seems to relate to epilepsy as that makes the results difficult to translate to the larger population. Some of the treatments seem to impact nutrient absorption and issues around oral ingestion of foods make it difficult for researchers to get accurate data. That's not to say that a keto diet is not going to have deficiencies, it would just be helpful if the research were more applicable to genpop.
Yeah, another drawback is that most of the research is on children, and most of them are prescribed supplements from the get-go because the diet itself is recognized as being nutrient deficient.
You sort of have to add 2 and 2 here.
Why is the diet inherently nutrient deficient?
Do we have a source anywhere stating which nutrients are deficient on a keto diet following the tenets of the diet? I'm not sure nutrient deficiencies in epileptic kids is the best baseline given the illness and the fact they are still growing, and all I've found from google is concerns about magnesium and recommendations to eat nuts. But that also goes with keto diets which include vegetables, because keto includes vegetables to a degree. I also haven't seen anything on how deficient - are we talking a multivitamin that many people take no matter how they eat, or are we headed into heavy duty supplementation of certain nutrients?
I don't think no carb diet even exists, perhaps @umayster can shed some light on diet planning and supplements for no veggie diets and how that would work.
I'm a pretty relaxed ketogenic eater. I love my minimal fruits and vegetables! A properly done ketogenic diet doesn't require supplements, although like SAD, if you aren't very mindful of micronutrient range, supplements are a good backup.
I'm not zero carb but have followed and read about the practice. They call it zero carb, but it really isn't. I just looked for a link that had a nutritional analysis of an all meat diet but couldn't find it - IIRC all micronutrients were covered even with minimal organ meat. This does not require supplements like some other fairly common WOE's.
Veggies (especially ones from factory farms where the emphasis is size, looks, pest resistance and durability) may not be the nutritional powerhouses you think. It is important to focus on nutrients from all sources.0 -
Wish I could,but no...0
-
I mean you could...but what would be the point?0
-
This is good entertainment! Hardly a scientific debate, since there is so much mudslinging (or, "facepalming"), but here is a scientific idea: How about you each experiment with your opponent's hypothesis, see what becomes of it, and come back to the table and discuss your results? The main limitation in every human study about nutrition is that no two humans are alike. Some bodies process certain things better, while others do so worse. For instance, my body loves dairy, but give me bread and you better head for the hills to escape my draft.
Just try stuff out, make it work for you, and you will have a pretty good hypothesis about you! :-)
Good day! #NoPityForTheKitty!0 -
rockstarjosh wrote: »This is good entertainment! Hardly a scientific debate, since there is so much mudslinging (or, "facepalming"), but here is a scientific idea: How about you each experiment with your opponent's hypothesis, see what becomes of it, and come back to the table and discuss your results? The main limitation in every human study about nutrition is that no two humans are alike. Some bodies process certain things better, while others do so worse. For instance, my body loves dairy, but give me bread and you better head for the hills to escape my draft.
Just try stuff out, make it work for you, and you will have a pretty good hypothesis about you! :-)
Good day! #NoPityForTheKitty!
You go first!0 -
rockstarjosh wrote: »This is good entertainment! Hardly a scientific debate, since there is so much mudslinging (or, "facepalming"), but here is a scientific idea: How about you each experiment with your opponent's hypothesis, see what becomes of it, and come back to the table and discuss your results? The main limitation in every human study about nutrition is that no two humans are alike. Some bodies process certain things better, while others do so worse. For instance, my body loves dairy, but give me bread and you better head for the hills to escape my draft.
Just try stuff out, make it work for you, and you will have a pretty good hypothesis about you! :-)
Good day! #NoPityForTheKitty!
I could see a few problems with this. Primarily, adherence. Say, for argument's sake, that keto/very low sugar was better (not saying it is, I'm actually on the other side). If I, thinking it isn't as good, try it for this experiment, as soon as I hit a bump (like carb flu), I'm likely to cheat. I won't see many of the benefits.
Also consider confirmation bias.
But hey, if you want to experiment, feel free! You might like what you find. As for me, I'm comfortable with what I'm doing now.0 -
I would rather die than give up my fruits, vegetables, dairy, and the occasional added sugar.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Maybe it makes them feel bad? Maybe they like to experiment? Sugar is fun to eat, but no one will suffer ill health without it.
Eating no veggies isn't good for you. Yeah, there are ways to make up the micronutrients (although I suspect they aren't as good), but the vast majority of people who mostly cut out veggies don't actually eat lots of organ meats and the like. (And the traditional Inuit diet, while not keto, doesn't compete with the blue zone diets anyway.)
So claiming eating no veggies is perfectly healthy seems inaccurate.
I think this is more of an opinion than a proven fact.
I do eat veggies. I like them and think they are good for me, but I'm not sure that eating no veggies has been proven harmful for people.
While I agree with this being an opinion, I'm also thinking that no veggies (or fruits) could be harmful in a small sense because....there wouldn't be much quality potty time going on without them! Tons of meat and cheese! Just thinking about the constipation makes me cringe.
Most keto'ers, including me, do not experience constipation. The fats, for me it is largely MCT's (coconut oil), keeps me moving very well. In fact it is almost too well.
Veggies and fibre supplements were a fail for me. I was much much slower before changing to a ketogenic diet.
I'm also of the opinion that fibre is mainly important for helping to move carbohydrates on through. If carbs are lower, then the need for fibre just isn't there.
Granted, too much cheese will slow thngs for many people, but that's not specific to a low carb diet.
As for nutrition, I've only been in ketosis for 5 months, but no problems so far. I am not carb free though. I eat a few veggies every day - more that my "normal" eating husband and two of my kids eat. I do take a multivitamin, but I have for years. No change there.
I would like to suggest that people who are googling keto look at a nutritional ketogenic diet rather than the medically ordered, strict ketogenic diet of those with epilepsy. They really are quite different.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Those comments were made in response to someone else saying that eating no veggies wouldn't be good for you, which was made in response to someone else stating that no one will suffer ill health without sugar (not veggies). Does anyone know of a study showing that people who do not consume fruits and/or veggies experience adverse health effects, even in cases where the person is able to get the nutrients from an alternative source?
really? i'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that most people who aren't eating their veg and fruit are pretty deficient nutrient wise and would thus suffer adverse consequences. the vast majority of the population doesn't know jack about actual nutrition nor do most new users to MFP...so i think suggesting that vegetables and whatnot aren't necessary to a healthy diet is somewhat disturbing....but hey...that's just me...carry on.
Are there any nutrients in fruit that aren't in veg or elsewhere ?0 -
daniwilford wrote: »Here is a article about the importance of dietary fiber what is even better 147 reference articles that support the claims of the health benefits of fiber.
http://www.nationalfibercouncil.org/pdfs/Fiber_Review_Paper.pdf
Here's a more independent scientific review that concluded it could not recommend an evidence based level of fibre intake in VLCD formulations (which are designed to be sole source of nutrition, and don't generally include fruit and vegetables FWIW).
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3957
0 -
Lots of people do Zero Carb. Its possible. I restrict my carbs to 20g or less per day, but not zero. Its possible though.0
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »I want to know where the people not eating fruits, veggies, or grains are getting their nutrition from if they're not eating organ meats?
Here's one guy's view http://www.ruled.me/introduction-micronutrients/ which shows only Vit C as a challenge without organ meats I think.
Many moons ago Yudkin looked at this aspect and concluded ketogenic weight loss diets were fine, although this wasn't the zero everything approach that is the debating point. It did make the point that calorie reduction also challenges micronutrient sufficiency in general. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/23/7/948.full.pdf+html0 -
I understand, and nutrition studies are problematic - pretty much all of them. I also don't think it is a coincidence that those eating fruits and vegetables have lower cancer rates, but confounders are truly almost impossible to completely draw out and it still may not be by direct cause/effect.
Indeed, I am particularly wary of "fruit and vegetables" as a single entity which often conceals two radically different associations - increased vegetable intake is associated with reduced ovarian cancer, but increased fruit intake is associated with increased ovarian cancer incidence (EPIC-Oxford). Combine the two and the abstract says that increased intake of "fruit and vegetables" is associated with reduced ovarian cancer.
Another funny was how low fruit intake was associated with increased respiratory tract cancers, because smokers ate less fruit.
It always pays to look at the raw data if you can, not the marketing messages of PR or abstracts.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I want to know where the people not eating fruits, veggies, or grains are getting their nutrition from if they're not eating organ meats?
Here's one guy's view http://www.ruled.me/introduction-micronutrients/ which shows only Vit C as a challenge without organ meats I think.
Many moons ago Yudkin looked at this aspect and concluded ketogenic weight loss diets were fine, although this wasn't the zero everything approach that is the debating point. It did make the point that calorie reduction also challenges micronutrient sufficiency in general. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/23/7/948.full.pdf+html
B9 and Folic Acid too.
And it doesn't list the amounts of the nutrients in the listed foods. I only looked for Vitamin A, and as I expected, there's pretty much only 1 animal, non-organ source that comes close to meeting your needs for it without having to eat 8 eggs or 10 glasses of milk, which is tuna. http://www.dietitians.ca/Your-Health/Nutrition-A-Z/Vitamins/Food-Sources-of-Vitamin-A.aspx
Eel too, but I don't think that's easy to come by over here in the west.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Maybe it makes them feel bad? Maybe they like to experiment? Sugar is fun to eat, but no one will suffer ill health without it.
Eating no veggies isn't good for you. Yeah, there are ways to make up the micronutrients (although I suspect they aren't as good), but the vast majority of people who mostly cut out veggies don't actually eat lots of organ meats and the like. (And the traditional Inuit diet, while not keto, doesn't compete with the blue zone diets anyway.)
So claiming eating no veggies is perfectly healthy seems inaccurate.
I think this is more of an opinion than a proven fact.
I do eat veggies. I like them and think they are good for me, but I'm not sure that eating no veggies has been proven harmful for people.
While I agree with this being an opinion, I'm also thinking that no veggies (or fruits) could be harmful in a small sense because....there wouldn't be much quality potty time going on without them! Tons of meat and cheese! Just thinking about the constipation makes me cringe.
Most keto'ers, including me, do not experience constipation. The fats, for me it is largely MCT's (coconut oil), keeps me moving very well. In fact it is almost too well.
Veggies and fibre supplements were a fail for me. I was much much slower before changing to a ketogenic diet.
I'm also of the opinion that fibre is mainly important for helping to move carbohydrates on through. If carbs are lower, then the need for fibre just isn't there.
Granted, too much cheese will slow thngs for many people, but that's not specific to a low carb diet.
As for nutrition, I've only been in ketosis for 5 months, but no problems so far. I am not carb free though. I eat a few veggies every day - more that my "normal" eating husband and two of my kids eat. I do take a multivitamin, but I have for years. No change there.
I would like to suggest that people who are googling keto look at a nutritional ketogenic diet rather than the medically ordered, strict ketogenic diet of those with epilepsy. They really are quite different.
The 2 IRL k-e-t-o friends who I discuss this with both have constipation. Both have been doing this diet for over a year and the one even longer. The individual who has been doing it longer also has epilepsy. He follows a modified Atkins method which provides less restriction then the traditional k-e-t-o diet. It provides for up to 35% protein and can be found on the epilepsy site up thread that I linked.
As far as vegetables, and I'm sure some people use different measuring and weighing methods. For me, 1 cup of vegetables would roughly be a serving. So 1 cup would not equal my weekly intake it would be daily. For some people, by example, eating very low calories I guess less then 1 cup (what ?!? 1/7)is a daily serving. IDK but it seems strange that 1 cup of vegetables for some in a week equals one cup a day for most people. I guess some people weigh and measure differently then the vast majority.
*edit spell check made k-e-t-o the word kept
0 -
I understand, and nutrition studies are problematic - pretty much all of them. I also don't think it is a coincidence that those eating fruits and vegetables have lower cancer rates, but confounders are truly almost impossible to completely draw out and it still may not be by direct cause/effect.
Indeed, I am particularly wary of "fruit and vegetables" as a single entity which often conceals two radically different associations - increased vegetable intake is associated with reduced ovarian cancer, but increased fruit intake is associated with increased ovarian cancer incidence (EPIC-Oxford). Combine the two and the abstract says that increased intake of "fruit and vegetables" is associated with reduced ovarian cancer.
Another funny was how low fruit intake was associated with increased respiratory tract cancers, because smokers ate less fruit.
It always pays to look at the raw data if you can, not the marketing messages of PR or abstracts.
Agreed. It's highly likely that someone with a high fruit/vegetable diet will be consuming less food with know issues such as charred meats, nitrites, transfats and likelier to have lifestyle behaviours in line with "taking care of their health".
Those cofounders are there.
But with the issues in micronutrients in dieting in general and the way people often fail to pay attention to learning about the details of nutritional needs I've always felt that diets that have restrictions on food types (be they vegetarian, keto or no xxxx) have a higher likelihood of deficiencies. I've seen lots of threads on the web about hair loss, amenorrhea, etc... on low cals, keto, etc...
So while it is possible to eat well on restrictive diets, by their nature, it requires some attention and, often enough, people fail on these.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Huh?NothingsGoing2StopMe wrote: »once I'm dead
0 -
rockstarjosh wrote: »This is good entertainment! Hardly a scientific debate, since there is so much mudslinging (or, "facepalming"), but here is a scientific idea: How about you each experiment with your opponent's hypothesis, see what becomes of it, and come back to the table and discuss your results? The main limitation in every human study about nutrition is that no two humans are alike. Some bodies process certain things better, while others do so worse. For instance, my body loves dairy, but give me bread and you better head for the hills to escape my draft.
Just try stuff out, make it work for you, and you will have a pretty good hypothesis about you! :-)
Good day! #NoPityForTheKitty!
why would I run an experiment on myself and torture myself by eating little or no carbs when I already eat carbs and have lost weight, and kept it off?????
0 -
rockstarjosh wrote: »This is good entertainment! Hardly a scientific debate, since there is so much mudslinging (or, "facepalming"), but here is a scientific idea: How about you each experiment with your opponent's hypothesis, see what becomes of it, and come back to the table and discuss your results? The main limitation in every human study about nutrition is that no two humans are alike. Some bodies process certain things better, while others do so worse. For instance, my body loves dairy, but give me bread and you better head for the hills to escape my draft.
Just try stuff out, make it work for you, and you will have a pretty good hypothesis about you! :-)
Good day! #NoPityForTheKitty!
why would I run an experiment on myself and torture myself by eating little or no carbs when I already eat carbs and have lost weight, and kept it off?????
Me too. I eat carbs (moderate amounts) and have lost 127 lb. There is also the fact that I am T2Dm and yesterday I recorded my best ever A1C at 5.0, which is lower than a large portion of non diabetics (most "healthy" people have numbers between 5.0 and 5.5). I enjoy my carbs and have no intention of torturing myself.0 -
KetoNurse77 wrote: »Lots of people do Zero Carb. Its possible. I restrict my carbs to 20g or less per day, but not zero. Its possible though.
lots? that's not a very scientific number. Do you have any studies showing how many people there are who actually follow a zero carb diet? As often as I hear this, I've yet to see proof of anyone actually doing it.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »This was after just a quick look through...
Studies/articles mentioning the need for supplementation:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/7253814_Mondino_Foundation._The_ketogenic_diet_From_molecular_mechanisms_to_clinical_effects
http://jcn.sagepub.com/content/16/9/633.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01827.x/full
More are behind pay walls but some of the text can be seen when you do a search.
Here are two showing deficiencies found:
http://bjo.bmj.com/content/63/3/191.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1528-1157.2003.26102.x/full
To address the two articles with deficiencies found, the first article where the two patients were diagnosed with optic neuropathy, both sets of parents in both case studies admitted that they were not giving the children the prescribed vitamin and mineral supplements. While this does support the claim that the ketogenic diet is lacking in some nutrients, it doesn't provide evidence that people who do keto diets and are obtaining the proper nutrients are at risk.
In the second article, the patient was found to be deficient in selenium, which led to a dilated cardiomyopathy. But later in the article, it states that "Dietary selenium is found in the highest concentrations in meat and seafood," which would be staples of the keto diet. It also states that "Assessment of selenium status is difficult because no optimal method is known. Dietary assessment is inaccurate, and selenium content depends on where the food was grown (soil content), which is usually unknown," which indicates that selenium deficiency is not unique to a keto diet and could occur even in people who eat a diet rich in grains and veggies simply based on location.
It is disappointing that most of the research around keto diets seems to relate to epilepsy as that makes the results difficult to translate to the larger population. Some of the treatments seem to impact nutrient absorption and issues around oral ingestion of foods make it difficult for researchers to get accurate data. That's not to say that a keto diet is not going to have deficiencies, it would just be helpful if the research were more applicable to genpop.
Yeah, another drawback is that most of the research is on children, and most of them are prescribed supplements from the get-go because the diet itself is recognized as being nutrient deficient.
You sort of have to add 2 and 2 here.
Why is the diet inherently nutrient deficient?
Do we have a source anywhere stating which nutrients are deficient on a keto diet following the tenets of the diet? I'm not sure nutrient deficiencies in epileptic kids is the best baseline given the illness and the fact they are still growing, and all I've found from google is concerns about magnesium and recommendations to eat nuts. But that also goes with keto diets which include vegetables, because keto includes vegetables to a degree. I also haven't seen anything on how deficient - are we talking a multivitamin that many people take no matter how they eat, or are we headed into heavy duty supplementation of certain nutrients?
I don't think no carb diet even exists, perhaps @umayster can shed some light on diet planning and supplements for no veggie diets and how that would work.
Every source I posted said the diet itself wasn't providing enough nutrition.
It certainly is lacking in calcium... this is just off the top of my head without coffee and in a rush. Keto proponents don't eat dairy except for small amounts of cream. Calcium supplementation was needed, and I suspect that children wouldn't be the only followers of the diet (women come to mind here) needing calcium.
0 -
I can easily do "no added" sugar
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »This was after just a quick look through...
Studies/articles mentioning the need for supplementation:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/7253814_Mondino_Foundation._The_ketogenic_diet_From_molecular_mechanisms_to_clinical_effects
http://jcn.sagepub.com/content/16/9/633.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01827.x/full
More are behind pay walls but some of the text can be seen when you do a search.
Here are two showing deficiencies found:
http://bjo.bmj.com/content/63/3/191.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1528-1157.2003.26102.x/full
To address the two articles with deficiencies found, the first article where the two patients were diagnosed with optic neuropathy, both sets of parents in both case studies admitted that they were not giving the children the prescribed vitamin and mineral supplements. While this does support the claim that the ketogenic diet is lacking in some nutrients, it doesn't provide evidence that people who do keto diets and are obtaining the proper nutrients are at risk.
In the second article, the patient was found to be deficient in selenium, which led to a dilated cardiomyopathy. But later in the article, it states that "Dietary selenium is found in the highest concentrations in meat and seafood," which would be staples of the keto diet. It also states that "Assessment of selenium status is difficult because no optimal method is known. Dietary assessment is inaccurate, and selenium content depends on where the food was grown (soil content), which is usually unknown," which indicates that selenium deficiency is not unique to a keto diet and could occur even in people who eat a diet rich in grains and veggies simply based on location.
It is disappointing that most of the research around keto diets seems to relate to epilepsy as that makes the results difficult to translate to the larger population. Some of the treatments seem to impact nutrient absorption and issues around oral ingestion of foods make it difficult for researchers to get accurate data. That's not to say that a keto diet is not going to have deficiencies, it would just be helpful if the research were more applicable to genpop.
Yeah, another drawback is that most of the research is on children, and most of them are prescribed supplements from the get-go because the diet itself is recognized as being nutrient deficient.
You sort of have to add 2 and 2 here.
Why is the diet inherently nutrient deficient?
It isn't.
That runs contrary to every source I posted. The doctors medically prescribing it for epilepsy who added supplements to it because it wasn't providing enough nutrition by itself disagree with you.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »This was after just a quick look through...
Studies/articles mentioning the need for supplementation:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/7253814_Mondino_Foundation._The_ketogenic_diet_From_molecular_mechanisms_to_clinical_effects
http://jcn.sagepub.com/content/16/9/633.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01827.x/full
More are behind pay walls but some of the text can be seen when you do a search.
Here are two showing deficiencies found:
http://bjo.bmj.com/content/63/3/191.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1528-1157.2003.26102.x/full
Ketogenic diets are quite extreme in macro and content when designed for drug resistant epileptics who may have multiple severe health issues and pharmaceutical interventions. I gave up reading the studies on epileptic ketogenic diets because it is a different animal than a diet filled with relatively normal proteins and fats and eaten by folks without multiple significant health issues.
Where do you get your calcium?0 -
Cheese. 4 ozs = 100 % RDA of Calcium.0
-
Looking at the wrong cheese.
American cheese has more. 296 mg/oz. for 1 g of carbs.
However, you couldn't get me to eat 4 oz of that a day.0 -
nope. i need ice cream or i get cranky0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions