Could you spend a day without any sugar?
Replies
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
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.
Still, that is 1 gram of carbs... not the zero grams of carbs that was being discussed as not providing any calcium.0 -
Fish is another keto-appropriate calcium source, 'cos of the small bones.
there's some in beef too - http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3689/2 - it all adds up.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Looking at the wrong cheese.
American cheese has more. 296 mg/oz.
Swiss has 221 and mozzarella has 205. Brie has only 50 and Monterrey Jack has 196.
Besides, who eats American when you can have a better tasting cheese like cheddar?0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Looking at the wrong cheese.
American cheese has more. 296 mg/oz.
Besides, who eats American when you can have a better tasting cheese like cheddar?
haha, cosign.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Looking at the wrong cheese.
American cheese has more. 296 mg/oz.
Swiss has 221 and mozzarella has 205. Brie has only 50 and Monterrey Jack has 196.
Besides, who eats American when you can have a better tasting cheese like cheddar?
my number was for cheddar.0 -
It can be done but sugar is not just about not eating sweets or chocolate, sugar is hidden in many other products like when you buy bread and ketchup, etc. But at least sugar is not as bad as high corn fruit syrup
0 -
I know a few people who strive for zero carbs, but they don't post on the main forums or aren't on MFP at all. The overwhelming majority of keto people I know have a max carb number, like a max calorie number, but don't strive for zero. That majority eats dairy, we simply moderate it based on our macros. We don't all make our carb macro with exactly the same carbs.
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
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?
Cream, cheese, sour cream, nuts, veggies, eggs, seafood and hotdogs primarily.0 -
The most interesting anecdote I've seen is what happened to the guy who came up with Soylent. While he was living as his own experimental subject for making it, he started having heart problems (palpitations I believe) from an iron deficiency. This was a guy intentionally researching how much to supplement and live off of supplements with the hopes of formulated a universal food for people - and he screwed up his iron of all things, not exactly one of the more esoteric nutrients to forget about.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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 -
Added sugar is easy but no way am I giving up my apples and banannas nor do I see the need to.0
-
I have tried this and got massive headaches it was a nightmare lol0
-
I also feel this guy's site is probably worth dropping in this thread for a laugh:
http://rogermwilcox.com/vegetable/0 -
No. Just...no0
-
The most interesting anecdote I've seen is what happened to the guy who came up with Soylent. While he was living as his own experimental subject for making it, he started having heart problems (palpitations I believe) from an iron deficiency. This was a guy intentionally researching how much to supplement and live off of supplements with the hopes of formulated a universal food for people - and he screwed up his iron of all things, not exactly one of the more esoteric nutrients to forget about.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
I knew he had issues, but not the details. So many potential risks in a monolithic diet like that (there is a thread, if people want to discuss it) that I personally would not risk it.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
The most interesting anecdote I've seen is what happened to the guy who came up with Soylent. While he was living as his own experimental subject for making it, he started having heart problems (palpitations I believe) from an iron deficiency. This was a guy intentionally researching how much to supplement and live off of supplements with the hopes of formulated a universal food for people - and he screwed up his iron of all things, not exactly one of the more esoteric nutrients to forget about.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
I knew he had issues, but not the details. So many potential risks in a monolithic diet like that (there is a thread, if people want to discuss it) that I personally would not risk it.
That seems like the most prudent issues of trying to get nutrients from supplements and not any from fruits or vegetables - seems just too much room for error and failed oversight. Once the signs creep in, it is probably a rather serious issue.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
The most interesting anecdote I've seen is what happened to the guy who came up with Soylent. While he was living as his own experimental subject for making it, he started having heart problems (palpitations I believe) from an iron deficiency. This was a guy intentionally researching how much to supplement and live off of supplements with the hopes of formulated a universal food for people - and he screwed up his iron of all things, not exactly one of the more esoteric nutrients to forget about.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
I knew he had issues, but not the details. So many potential risks in a monolithic diet like that (there is a thread, if people want to discuss it) that I personally would not risk it.
That seems like the most prudent issues of trying to get nutrients from supplements and not any from fruits or vegetables - seems just too much room for error and failed oversight. Once the signs creep in, it is probably a rather serious issue.
Or getting too much of something because you over measured .... 50 micrograms of chromium vs ... whoops, I put in a dash too much.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
The most interesting anecdote I've seen is what happened to the guy who came up with Soylent. While he was living as his own experimental subject for making it, he started having heart problems (palpitations I believe) from an iron deficiency. This was a guy intentionally researching how much to supplement and live off of supplements with the hopes of formulated a universal food for people - and he screwed up his iron of all things, not exactly one of the more esoteric nutrients to forget about.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
I knew he had issues, but not the details. So many potential risks in a monolithic diet like that (there is a thread, if people want to discuss it) that I personally would not risk it.
That seems like the most prudent issues of trying to get nutrients from supplements and not any from fruits or vegetables - seems just too much room for error and failed oversight. Once the signs creep in, it is probably a rather serious issue.
Or getting too much of something because you over measured .... 50 micrograms of chromium vs ... whoops, I put in a dash too much.
No such thing as excess chrome - 50 micrograms sounds like a lovely day, such a lovely day!
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
The most interesting anecdote I've seen is what happened to the guy who came up with Soylent. While he was living as his own experimental subject for making it, he started having heart problems (palpitations I believe) from an iron deficiency. This was a guy intentionally researching how much to supplement and live off of supplements with the hopes of formulated a universal food for people - and he screwed up his iron of all things, not exactly one of the more esoteric nutrients to forget about.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
I knew he had issues, but not the details. So many potential risks in a monolithic diet like that (there is a thread, if people want to discuss it) that I personally would not risk it.
That seems like the most prudent issues of trying to get nutrients from supplements and not any from fruits or vegetables - seems just too much room for error and failed oversight. Once the signs creep in, it is probably a rather serious issue.
One thing I don't think is researched enough is now micronutrients interact, especially the trace ones. We know some of the big ones (like calcium slows down or can even prevent absorption of iron) but does having your Vitamin C with 0.1mg of copper and some fiber (like you get in an orange) work better than taking them individually as supplements?0 -
Witness!0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
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.
But I thought he specified cheese, not "Pasteurized Prepared Cheese Product."
;-)0 -
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Looking at the wrong cheese.
American cheese has more. 296 mg/oz.
Swiss has 221 and mozzarella has 205. Brie has only 50 and Monterrey Jack has 196.
Besides, who eats American when you can have a better tasting cheese like cheddar?
my number was for cheddar.
Like earlnabby said, that's coming out at 80%, even ignoring those who need more. Also, 460 calories is a pretty big chunk to spend on cheese unless one has a huge calorie allowance. Not saying I've never, ever done it, but I didn't think it was for my health.0 -
I couldnt do it. I eat at least 5-6 servings of fruit a day. I am not giving that up for anything. Added sugars for sure.0
-
And that amount is a whopping 456 calories. I've seen the diaries of the keto adherents eating at deficit. That's a huge chunk of their daily allowance, and they're not eating 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
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?
Cream, cheese, sour cream, nuts, veggies, eggs, seafood and hotdogs primarily.
You're getting the full 1,000 mg a day from that? Really?0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »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
Constipation really isn't the norm. I would hazard a guess that your friends are not getting enough sodium or magnesium; if they increased those they might improve. It could be from certain foods that their bodies have issue with such as cheese. If they were able to expriment a bit (difficult on a medical diet) they may be able to resolve it.
I don't think I'm a special snowflake and one of the rare keto'er who does not have constipation. My conversations with other low carbers would negate that too.
...and most keto'ers get more than a cup of veggies per week! Do you really think that is typical? This is why people need to NOT look at epileptic diets. They are not nutritional ketogenic diets.
Yesterday, not an unusual carb day for me even though I "fat fasted" (only coconut oil) until 4:00pm, I had about1/2 cup macadamia nuts, about 1/3 cup green beans, and later on some celery (with my pork rinds) dipped in an artichoke asiago dip. That was pretty much spot on my usual upper limit of carbs - 18g of carbs which worked out to 3 g of sugar.
And that is just me. Many keto'ers, especially those more active than me, eat many more carbs than I do. A few eat less. The few I know who have been eating very few carbs, and basically no sugar, have fine health.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?????
Wow. I agree.
I ate that way (basically SAD with a goal towards moderating my intake) for decades. I'm not going back to that. It was a fail for me.PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
I doubt the average keto'er in nutritional ketosis (not treating epilepsy) is low in calcium. Green leafy veggies are a favourite among many because of flavor, bulk and low carb content. I would guess we eat cheese pretty regularly, and indulge in many high fat dairy products like whipping cream, cheese, sour cream and plain yogurt. Plus fat is needed for calcium absorption so a LCHF diet could be a benefit.
If a keto'er (or anyone for that matter) does not like foods rich in calcium, take a calcium supplement.0 -
No I couldn't do it.0
-
I've done 2 days in a row of no added sugar a couple of times (don't ask why
)
It was very hard. I acknowledge that I eat a lot of carb-y foods. But 100% whole wheat bread was out (even though it only had 1g and the sugar is basically to feed the yeast). So were bread products. I could eat Triscuits, though. Cheerios were out, again 1g of sugar; fortunately I like creamy wheat and oatmeal for breakfast. I had a lot of nuts, fruits, and eggs on those days. Ironically, Kraft Mac N Cheese was okay.
I also noticed that my carb level overall was much lower when I did it; I guess most carb foods have some sugar (added). And also that I didn't feel loads better. Low carb and keto works great for some people, not so great for others.0 -
I am sure I have many days where I have no added sugar. I've been reading labels like, forever. Yes, the carb numbers are a little more in control that way. And I wonder why in the heck sugar has to be added to so many foods (like peanut butter! Whyyyyyyy.)
But to cut out all sugars, including the naturally occurring ones? Nearly impossible. That takes out the dairy, all fruits, and most vegetables. I just learned something new today about onions and Jerusalem artichokes. Fructans.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