Could you spend a day without any sugar?
Options
Replies
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »<snip>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.
One of the advantages of low carb is fewer BMs. They still happen and with no problem, they just don't happen as often. Constipation usually means dehydration, which applies to regular diets too.
By the by, most low carb people do eat veggies. It's the higher carb ones that are avoided or at least rationed. Low carb doesn't always mean zero veggies. It can, but it doesn't have to. Hubby is in keto. For lunch, he's eating 350g of chicken meat, 125g of mushrooms, and 320g of veggies. He ate veggies for breakfast and he'll have them for dinner too.
there have already been comments here about how they are really not necessary nor have they proven to have any health benefits, etc...this kind of dogma goes on a lot around here it seems...
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.
If you're claiming that what someone said is wrong and that people are going to suffer adverse consequences even in cases where they are getting those same nutrients from other sources, I'd like to see a study backing up that claim. Anecdotally, I know several people who do not include fruits and veggies as a staple in their diets and who have no adverse health issues or are nutrient-deficient, so I'm interested to see the research supporting your claim that these are necessary for a healthy diet.
yea, that poster clearly said if they were not getting their nutrients there would be adverse health affects. He never made reference to alternate sources...so not really sure where you are going with this.
The people being accused of low carb/keto dogma have very clearly stated in this thread that veggies are not necessary and the nutrients can be obtained from other sources, so I'm left wondering where others who are stating people will be nutrient deficient without veggies are going with their statements. It's right here: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.
EVERY nutrient in vegetables is available elsewhere, vegetables are not the only easy source of life sustaining nutrients. Eating no veggies is not bad for you, you just need to increase familiarity of nutrient content of other food sources to make it easy and healthy.
It seems like the veggie argument goalpost is being moved all over the place in this discussion. The low carb people are saying that sugar, including the sugar in fruit or veggies, is not necessary for good health because the body can produce its own. No one is saying the nutrients are unnecessary, they are just stating that they can be obtained from other sources.
Unless someone has a study that can prove that fruits and veggies are absolutely necessary to a healthy diet and that people who do not eat fruits and veggies, even if obtaining nutrients from alternative sources, will suffer adverse health effects, then it seems this discussion is more about people's personal food preferences than the necessity of certain foods being included in a diet based on science.
again, the person you were responding to clearly said not getting nutrients would be bad for health. That poster never said that source mattered, just getting enough nutrients..
officially mind blown0 -
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.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
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?0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »<snip>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.
One of the advantages of low carb is fewer BMs. They still happen and with no problem, they just don't happen as often. Constipation usually means dehydration, which applies to regular diets too.
By the by, most low carb people do eat veggies. It's the higher carb ones that are avoided or at least rationed. Low carb doesn't always mean zero veggies. It can, but it doesn't have to. Hubby is in keto. For lunch, he's eating 350g of chicken meat, 125g of mushrooms, and 320g of veggies. He ate veggies for breakfast and he'll have them for dinner too.
there have already been comments here about how they are really not necessary nor have they proven to have any health benefits, etc...this kind of dogma goes on a lot around here it seems...
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.
If you're claiming that what someone said is wrong and that people are going to suffer adverse consequences even in cases where they are getting those same nutrients from other sources, I'd like to see a study backing up that claim. Anecdotally, I know several people who do not include fruits and veggies as a staple in their diets and who have no adverse health issues or are nutrient-deficient, so I'm interested to see the research supporting your claim that these are necessary for a healthy diet.
yea, that poster clearly said if they were not getting their nutrients there would be adverse health affects. He never made reference to alternate sources...so not really sure where you are going with this.
The people being accused of low carb/keto dogma have very clearly stated in this thread that veggies are not necessary and the nutrients can be obtained from other sources, so I'm left wondering where others who are stating people will be nutrient deficient without veggies are going with their statements. It's right here: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.
EVERY nutrient in vegetables is available elsewhere, vegetables are not the only easy source of life sustaining nutrients. Eating no veggies is not bad for you, you just need to increase familiarity of nutrient content of other food sources to make it easy and healthy.
It seems like the veggie argument goalpost is being moved all over the place in this discussion. The low carb people are saying that sugar, including the sugar in fruit or veggies, is not necessary for good health because the body can produce its own. No one is saying the nutrients are unnecessary, they are just stating that they can be obtained from other sources.
Unless someone has a study that can prove that fruits and veggies are absolutely necessary to a healthy diet and that people who do not eat fruits and veggies, even if obtaining nutrients from alternative sources, will suffer adverse health effects, then it seems this discussion is more about people's personal food preferences than the necessity of certain foods being included in a diet based on science.
Well given this:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01635589209514201
Says fruits and vegetable consumption, particularly fruit, reduces cancer risk, and other studies have shown no reduction in cancer from supplements (study I heard mentioned by Harvard nutrition, so I don't have it handy), I'd say there is something in fruit but not in supplements that has cancer preventative properties. Does increased risk of cancer qualify as adverse health effects?
Eating more fruit & vegetables causes less cancer? No.
Some people who eat more fruits and vegetables also have fewer cancers. Yes.
Eating more fruits & vegetables will lower your personal risk of cancer. No.
This study does not mean I can actually affect my own health by chosing to eat more fruits and vegetables. It means the study found something in common between people who get less cancer and people who eat more fruits and vegetables.
Maybe not having cancer causes people to eat more fruits and vegetables?
Limits of studies - these things generally have to be epidemological. Do you have an ethical and efficacious way to test if eating fruits and vegetables prevent cancer? I'd be fascinated by the design of such a study, as would much of academia. Barring that, looking at epideomological data and removing confounders tends to be a limit for these kind of things.
I could look up phytonutrients and probably flood links that they are related to cancer reduction.
Personally, I'm not inclined to think it is sheer coincidence that people eating fruits and vegetables have lower risks for a plethora of diseases. You're free to draw what conclusions you like from them - your health is in your hands.
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.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Are you posting this as a mod or as a user?cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »<snip>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.
One of the advantages of low carb is fewer BMs. They still happen and with no problem, they just don't happen as often. Constipation usually means dehydration, which applies to regular diets too.
By the by, most low carb people do eat veggies. It's the higher carb ones that are avoided or at least rationed. Low carb doesn't always mean zero veggies. It can, but it doesn't have to. Hubby is in keto. For lunch, he's eating 350g of chicken meat, 125g of mushrooms, and 320g of veggies. He ate veggies for breakfast and he'll have them for dinner too.
there have already been comments here about how they are really not necessary nor have they proven to have any health benefits, etc...this kind of dogma goes on a lot around here it seems...
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.
If you're claiming that what someone said is wrong and that people are going to suffer adverse consequences even in cases where they are getting those same nutrients from other sources, I'd like to see a study backing up that claim. Anecdotally, I know several people who do not include fruits and veggies as a staple in their diets and who have no adverse health issues or are nutrient-deficient, so I'm interested to see the research supporting your claim that these are necessary for a healthy diet.
yea, that poster clearly said if they were not getting their nutrients there would be adverse health affects. He never made reference to alternate sources...so not really sure where you are going with this.
The people being accused of low carb/keto dogma have very clearly stated in this thread that veggies are not necessary and the nutrients can be obtained from other sources, so I'm left wondering where others who are stating people will be nutrient deficient without veggies are going with their statements. It's right here: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.
EVERY nutrient in vegetables is available elsewhere, vegetables are not the only easy source of life sustaining nutrients. Eating no veggies is not bad for you, you just need to increase familiarity of nutrient content of other food sources to make it easy and healthy.
It seems like the veggie argument goalpost is being moved all over the place in this discussion. The low carb people are saying that sugar, including the sugar in fruit or veggies, is not necessary for good health because the body can produce its own. No one is saying the nutrients are unnecessary, they are just stating that they can be obtained from other sources.
Unless someone has a study that can prove that fruits and veggies are absolutely necessary to a healthy diet and that people who do not eat fruits and veggies, even if obtaining nutrients from alternative sources, will suffer adverse health effects, then it seems this discussion is more about people's personal food preferences than the necessity of certain foods being included in a diet based on science.
I am certain I've read that mods don't moderate in threads in which they are participating as users, and since she's not using mod-speak in this thread, my conclusion is that she's posting as a user.
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.0 -
A quick dose of glucose - intravenously if necessary - is the only treatment for a diabetic who is going in to insulin shock. Protein just couldn't deliver fast enough before the damage would be done.0
-
I'm certain I've read that, too. To say more than that would probably be seen as commenting on moderation, so I shan't.kshama2001 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Are you posting this as a mod or as a user?cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »<snip>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.
One of the advantages of low carb is fewer BMs. They still happen and with no problem, they just don't happen as often. Constipation usually means dehydration, which applies to regular diets too.
By the by, most low carb people do eat veggies. It's the higher carb ones that are avoided or at least rationed. Low carb doesn't always mean zero veggies. It can, but it doesn't have to. Hubby is in keto. For lunch, he's eating 350g of chicken meat, 125g of mushrooms, and 320g of veggies. He ate veggies for breakfast and he'll have them for dinner too.
there have already been comments here about how they are really not necessary nor have they proven to have any health benefits, etc...this kind of dogma goes on a lot around here it seems...
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.
If you're claiming that what someone said is wrong and that people are going to suffer adverse consequences even in cases where they are getting those same nutrients from other sources, I'd like to see a study backing up that claim. Anecdotally, I know several people who do not include fruits and veggies as a staple in their diets and who have no adverse health issues or are nutrient-deficient, so I'm interested to see the research supporting your claim that these are necessary for a healthy diet.
yea, that poster clearly said if they were not getting their nutrients there would be adverse health affects. He never made reference to alternate sources...so not really sure where you are going with this.
The people being accused of low carb/keto dogma have very clearly stated in this thread that veggies are not necessary and the nutrients can be obtained from other sources, so I'm left wondering where others who are stating people will be nutrient deficient without veggies are going with their statements. It's right here: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.
EVERY nutrient in vegetables is available elsewhere, vegetables are not the only easy source of life sustaining nutrients. Eating no veggies is not bad for you, you just need to increase familiarity of nutrient content of other food sources to make it easy and healthy.
It seems like the veggie argument goalpost is being moved all over the place in this discussion. The low carb people are saying that sugar, including the sugar in fruit or veggies, is not necessary for good health because the body can produce its own. No one is saying the nutrients are unnecessary, they are just stating that they can be obtained from other sources.
Unless someone has a study that can prove that fruits and veggies are absolutely necessary to a healthy diet and that people who do not eat fruits and veggies, even if obtaining nutrients from alternative sources, will suffer adverse health effects, then it seems this discussion is more about people's personal food preferences than the necessity of certain foods being included in a diet based on science.
I am certain I've read that mods don't moderate in threads in which they are participating as users, and since she's not using mod-speak in this thread, my conclusion is that she's posting as a user.
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.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.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.
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions