Could you spend a day without any sugar?
Options
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K 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
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions