Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Are all calories the same??
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Do we all not do IIFYM? One with a 50% carb, 25% protein and 25% fats macro vs. 5% carb, 15% protein and 80% fats would be saying all calories are not the same would they not?0
-
Wait, I'm confused. Are we arguing because people don't like vegetables and they should? Who cares if people eat veggies or not?0
-
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
Tell that to 18h century British sailors.
If you're referencing scurvy, wouldn't it be just as valid to call it a rat deficiency?
I don't know, would it? Does a lack of rats cause people to suffer from vitamin-C deficiency?
Rats are apparently a good source of Vitamin C. Low carb, too.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Do we all not do IIFYM? One with a 50% carb, 25% protein and 25% fats macro vs. 5% carb, 15% protein and 80% fats would be saying all calories are not the same would they not?
Saying all *calories* are the same isn't the same thing as saying all macros are the same.
Calories, as a unit of energy, are the same. But it's also true that we require certain amounts of macro- and micro-nutrients in order to maintain our health. It's two different conversations.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
While that may technically be true, people can and do die from vitamin deficiencies, which can easily be consumed in fruits and vegetables. I think that's the point, here.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
Tell that to 18h century British sailors.
If you're referencing scurvy, wouldn't it be just as valid to call it a rat deficiency?
If you're referencing rat hairs on crops, that is actually B-12, based on stories about people from India that followed vegetarian diets that moved to Britain. It probably isn't rat hair, but actually insect parts, including body waste that provides B-12 on crops in those instances, while in Britain the crops have less waste and insect parts to them.
Scurvy is from a lack of Vitamin C, although the 1700s discovery of the phenomena didn't lead to understanding vitamins as the only discovery was that citrus fruits prevented scurvy, not that such fruit contains vitamin C. True discovery of vitamins goes to thiamine discovered in treating BeriBeri, also in sailors.
Basically, don't be a sailor in the 1800s or earlier is good dietary advice.
I believe they are referring to the fact that rats can produce vitamin C unlike humans, and I believe there are sailors who supplemented their diets with rat and did not get scurvy. Although I can't remember who that was.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
Tell that to 18h century British sailors.
If you're referencing scurvy, wouldn't it be just as valid to call it a rat deficiency?
I don't know, would it? Does a lack of rats cause people to suffer from vitamin-C deficiency?
Rats are apparently a good source of Vitamin C. Low carb, too.
Not if cooked. The vitamin C part.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
Tell that to 18h century British sailors.
If you're referencing scurvy, wouldn't it be just as valid to call it a rat deficiency?
If you're referencing rat hairs on crops, that is actually B-12, based on stories about people from India that followed vegetarian diets that moved to Britain. It probably isn't rat hair, but actually insect parts, including body waste that provides B-12 on crops in those instances, while in Britain the crops have less waste and insect parts to them.
Scurvy is from a lack of Vitamin C, although the 1700s discovery of the phenomena didn't lead to understanding vitamins as the only discovery was that citrus fruits prevented scurvy, not that such fruit contains vitamin C. True discovery of vitamins goes to thiamine discovered in treating BeriBeri, also in sailors.
Basically, don't be a sailor in the 1800s or earlier is good dietary advice.
I believe they are referring to the fact that rats can produce vitamin C unlike humans, and I believe there are sailors who supplemented their diets with rat and did not get scurvy. Although I can't remember who that was.
Many mammals can produce vitamin c. Primates and guinea pigs tend to be the exception as frugivore diets eliminate the need to produce it.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
Tell that to 18h century British sailors.
If you're referencing scurvy, wouldn't it be just as valid to call it a rat deficiency?
I don't know, would it? Does a lack of rats cause people to suffer from vitamin-C deficiency?
Rats are apparently a good source of Vitamin C. Low carb, too.
Not if cooked. The vitamin C part.
I'm sure the worms give lots of extra fiber.0 -
I dunno, but if we can't produce it maybe we should consider eating vit c rich grub.0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »Do we all not do IIFYM? One with a 50% carb, 25% protein and 25% fats macro vs. 5% carb, 15% protein and 80% fats would be saying all calories are not the same would they not?
no, we dont all do IIFYM0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Do we all not do IIFYM? One with a 50% carb, 25% protein and 25% fats macro vs. 5% carb, 15% protein and 80% fats would be saying all calories are not the same would they not?
no, we dont all do IIFYM
No, Gale's right, if you're alive, you're eating food, and all food has macros, even if those macros are 0. Ergo, we are all IIFYMers now.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Do we all not do IIFYM? One with a 50% carb, 25% protein and 25% fats macro vs. 5% carb, 15% protein and 80% fats would be saying all calories are not the same would they not?
I aim for certain amounts of carbs and protein and fat (specifically certain kinds of fats) and make other food choices because I know that FOODS are different.
I think that calories are fungible (so the same).
I do agree that anyone who focuses on macros does IIFYM, but typically it's those of us who talk about flexible dieting or the moderation approach who get accused of not caring about nutrition, even if we say to consider nutrition. It's weird.0 -
Wait, I'm confused. Are we arguing because people don't like vegetables and they should? Who cares if people eat veggies or not?
I get irritated when people advocate against vegetable eating (to newbies, don't care in this thread particularly) or suggest that it's somehow healthier not to eat any carbs (or almost none) since carbs are bad, even vegetables. Basically, I don't care what anyone eats until they start insisting that people who eat carbs (or more than a tiny amount of carbs) are unhealthy. But if that starts happening, then I think it's fair game to look at the actual nutrition advice and correlations.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).
It certainly is possible to get nutrition via supplementation, but it does tend to involve a rather precarious balancing that isn't without risk.There certainly seems to be epidemelogical data that suggest vegetable consumption reduces mortality risk from a few conditions, and that taking a multivitamin doesn't carry this benefit, implying, subtractively, there is something in vegetable consumption that isn't a vitamin that provides health benefits.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Wait, I'm confused. Are we arguing because people don't like vegetables and they should? Who cares if people eat veggies or not?
I get irritated when people advocate against vegetable eating (to newbies, don't care in this thread particularly) or suggest that it's somehow healthier not to eat any carbs (or almost none) since carbs are bad, even vegetables. Basically, I don't care what anyone eats until they start insisting that people who eat carbs (or more than a tiny amount of carbs) are unhealthy. But if that starts happening, then I think it's fair game to look at the actual nutrition advice and correlations.
sound like a good topic for nutrition debate ….high carb or low vegetable….0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
Tell that to 18h century British sailors.
That is because they relied on grains so much. It appears carnivores don't need vitamin c from sources beyond meat sources. The problem appears to have been consuming flour rather than meats. Veggies would have worked too of course.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
Tell that to 18h century British sailors.
That is because they relied on grains so much. It appears carnivores don't need vitamin c from sources beyond meat sources. The problem appears to have been consuming flour rather than meats. Veggies would have worked too of course.
More vitamin issue problems. Relying on grain, particularly polished grain, leads to BeriBeri via stripped thiamin. Eating meat will fix that issue.
Carnivorous animals often make their own vitamin c, not necessarily relying on dietary sources. Humans like the Inuit have been known to get vitamin C from meat, but this requires that the meat be raw, and usually organ meat or blubber. It must be raw as cooking destroys vitamin c from animal sources.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
Tell that to 18h century British sailors.
That is because they relied on grains so much. It appears carnivores don't need vitamin c from sources beyond meat sources. The problem appears to have been consuming flour rather than meats. Veggies would have worked too of course.
More vitamin issue problems. Relying on grain, particularly polished grain, leads to BeriBeri via stripped thiamin. Eating meat will fix that issue.
Carnivorous animals often make their own vitamin c, not necessarily relying on dietary sources. Humans like the Inuit have been known to get vitamin C from meat, but this requires that the meat be raw, and usually organ meat or blubber. It must be raw as cooking destroys vitamin c from animal sources.
Beat me to it.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
Tell that to 18h century British sailors.
That is because they relied on grains so much. It appears carnivores don't need vitamin c from sources beyond meat sources. The problem appears to have been consuming flour rather than meats. Veggies would have worked too of course.
More vitamin issue problems. Relying on grain, particularly polished grain, leads to BeriBeri via stripped thiamin. Eating meat will fix that issue.
Carnivorous animals often make their own vitamin c, not necessarily relying on dietary sources. Humans like the Inuit have been known to get vitamin C from meat, but this requires that the meat be raw, and usually organ meat or blubber. It must be raw as cooking destroys vitamin c from animal sources.
Meh. Rare is better anyways.
Those low carbers who eat very few veggies tend to more towards a rarer cut of meat. I wonder if it is due to experience and better taste or from an unrecognized need to consume raw/rare meat.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).
It certainly is possible to get nutrition via supplementation, but it does tend to involve a rather precarious balancing that isn't without risk.There certainly seems to be epidemelogical data that suggest vegetable consumption reduces mortality risk from a few conditions, and that taking a multivitamin doesn't carry this benefit, implying, subtractively, there is something in vegetable consumption that isn't a vitamin that provides health benefits.
I would say no. Ketosis is not a state of carb deficiency. It is just a different fuel. That's simply twisting the meaning - semantics.
A diet high in vegetables can reduce mortality, but my guess is that if a diet is high in veggies it is low in grains and added sugars. My guess is those are the problems (unless one gets IR and then all carbs are potentially a concern) and if you avoid those, by replacing them with vegetables, then health improves. Low carb dieters replace grains and sugar with fat, and we are apparently healthier for it.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).
It certainly is possible to get nutrition via supplementation, but it does tend to involve a rather precarious balancing that isn't without risk.There certainly seems to be epidemelogical data that suggest vegetable consumption reduces mortality risk from a few conditions, and that taking a multivitamin doesn't carry this benefit, implying, subtractively, there is something in vegetable consumption that isn't a vitamin that provides health benefits.
I would say no. Ketosis is not a state of carb deficiency. It is just a different fuel. That's simply twisting the meaning - semantics.
A diet high in vegetables can reduce mortality, but my guess is that if a diet is high in veggies it is low in grains and added sugars. My guess is those are the problems (unless one gets IR and then all carbs are potentially a concern) and if you avoid those, by replacing them with vegetables, then health improves. Low carb dieters replace grains and sugar with fat, and we are apparently healthier for it.
It switches fuels for fun, or because it is deficient in the other fuel and needs to? I simply said deficiency, I did not describe it as a pathological condition.
Why would pushing grains and sugar out of a diet be a health benefit when whole grains and sugar containing fruit consumption show similar, though not as great, epidemiological health and mortality effects as vegetables?0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).
It certainly is possible to get nutrition via supplementation, but it does tend to involve a rather precarious balancing that isn't without risk.There certainly seems to be epidemelogical data that suggest vegetable consumption reduces mortality risk from a few conditions, and that taking a multivitamin doesn't carry this benefit, implying, subtractively, there is something in vegetable consumption that isn't a vitamin that provides health benefits.
I would say no. Ketosis is not a state of carb deficiency. It is just a different fuel. That's simply twisting the meaning - semantics.
A diet high in vegetables can reduce mortality, but my guess is that if a diet is high in veggies it is low in grains and added sugars. My guess is those are the problems (unless one gets IR and then all carbs are potentially a concern) and if you avoid those, by replacing them with vegetables, then health improves. Low carb dieters replace grains and sugar with fat, and we are apparently healthier for it.
It switches fuels for fun, or because it is deficient in the other fuel and needs to? I simply said deficiency, I did not describe it as a pathological condition.
Why would pushing grains and sugar out of a diet be a health benefit when whole grains and sugar containing fruit consumption show similar, though not as great, epidemiological health and mortality effects as vegetables?
Deficiency implies a shortage or lack of something. Not exactly right depending on how you look at it: is glucose is used first in an effort to keep BG levels from rising to unhealthy levels or is it because it is the prefered fuel?0 -
never mind
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).
It certainly is possible to get nutrition via supplementation, but it does tend to involve a rather precarious balancing that isn't without risk.There certainly seems to be epidemelogical data that suggest vegetable consumption reduces mortality risk from a few conditions, and that taking a multivitamin doesn't carry this benefit, implying, subtractively, there is something in vegetable consumption that isn't a vitamin that provides health benefits.
I would say no. Ketosis is not a state of carb deficiency. It is just a different fuel. That's simply twisting the meaning - semantics.
A diet high in vegetables can reduce mortality, but my guess is that if a diet is high in veggies it is low in grains and added sugars. My guess is those are the problems (unless one gets IR and then all carbs are potentially a concern) and if you avoid those, by replacing them with vegetables, then health improves. Low carb dieters replace grains and sugar with fat, and we are apparently healthier for it.
It switches fuels for fun, or because it is deficient in the other fuel and needs to? I simply said deficiency, I did not describe it as a pathological condition.
Why would pushing grains and sugar out of a diet be a health benefit when whole grains and sugar containing fruit consumption show similar, though not as great, epidemiological health and mortality effects as vegetables?
Deficiency implies a shortage or lack of something. Not exactly right depending on how you look at it: is glucose is used first in an effort to keep BG levels from rising to unhealthy levels or is it because it is the prefered fuel?
If only chemistry and biological activity like the Kreb cycle could answer such a question.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).
It certainly is possible to get nutrition via supplementation, but it does tend to involve a rather precarious balancing that isn't without risk.There certainly seems to be epidemelogical data that suggest vegetable consumption reduces mortality risk from a few conditions, and that taking a multivitamin doesn't carry this benefit, implying, subtractively, there is something in vegetable consumption that isn't a vitamin that provides health benefits.
I would say no. Ketosis is not a state of carb deficiency. It is just a different fuel. That's simply twisting the meaning - semantics.
A diet high in vegetables can reduce mortality, but my guess is that if a diet is high in veggies it is low in grains and added sugars. My guess is those are the problems (unless one gets IR and then all carbs are potentially a concern) and if you avoid those, by replacing them with vegetables, then health improves. Low carb dieters replace grains and sugar with fat, and we are apparently healthier for it.
Any diet that replaces low nutrient foods with high nutrient foods is going to improve your health. And except for in Paleo books, I have never seen any science that would suggest whole grains as bad for your health. On the other hand, there are TONS of studies that would suggest saturated fats are linked to CVD and higher mortality. And the ONLY time I have seen a non weight loss LCHF study suggest cholesterol improvements, is when the diet was high in veggies and unsaturated fats. So replacing added sugars with saturated fats is not going to make you healthier. Replacing added sugars with unsaturated fats, will probably make you healthier. Why, because there is a ton of research linking health improvements to monounsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and Omega 3s. Which is probably why the Mediterranean diet is one of the most recommended diets.
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).
It certainly is possible to get nutrition via supplementation, but it does tend to involve a rather precarious balancing that isn't without risk.There certainly seems to be epidemelogical data that suggest vegetable consumption reduces mortality risk from a few conditions, and that taking a multivitamin doesn't carry this benefit, implying, subtractively, there is something in vegetable consumption that isn't a vitamin that provides health benefits.
I would say no. Ketosis is not a state of carb deficiency. It is just a different fuel. That's simply twisting the meaning - semantics.
A diet high in vegetables can reduce mortality, but my guess is that if a diet is high in veggies it is low in grains and added sugars. My guess is those are the problems (unless one gets IR and then all carbs are potentially a concern) and if you avoid those, by replacing them with vegetables, then health improves. Low carb dieters replace grains and sugar with fat, and we are apparently healthier for it.
Any diet that replaces low nutrient foods with high nutrient foods is going to improve your health. And except for in Paleo books, I have never seen any science that would suggest whole grains as bad for your health. On the other hand, there are TONS of studies that would suggest saturated fats are linked to CVD and higher mortality. And the ONLY time I have seen a non weight loss LCHF study suggest cholesterol improvements, is when the diet was high in veggies and unsaturated fats. So replacing added sugars with saturated fats is not going to make you healthier. Replacing added sugars with unsaturated fats, will probably make you healthier. Why, because there is a ton of research linking health improvements to monounsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and Omega 3s. Which is probably why the Mediterranean diet is one of the most recommended diets.
Nope, Olive Garden is sponsoring all those recommendations on Yelp Science (PubMed). Shake up weeple!0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).
It certainly is possible to get nutrition via supplementation, but it does tend to involve a rather precarious balancing that isn't without risk.There certainly seems to be epidemelogical data that suggest vegetable consumption reduces mortality risk from a few conditions, and that taking a multivitamin doesn't carry this benefit, implying, subtractively, there is something in vegetable consumption that isn't a vitamin that provides health benefits.
I would say no. Ketosis is not a state of carb deficiency. It is just a different fuel. That's simply twisting the meaning - semantics.
A diet high in vegetables can reduce mortality, but my guess is that if a diet is high in veggies it is low in grains and added sugars. My guess is those are the problems (unless one gets IR and then all carbs are potentially a concern) and if you avoid those, by replacing them with vegetables, then health improves. Low carb dieters replace grains and sugar with fat, and we are apparently healthier for it.
Any diet that replaces low nutrient foods with high nutrient foods is going to improve your health. And except for in Paleo books, I have never seen any science that would suggest whole grains as bad for your health. On the other hand, there are TONS of studies that would suggest saturated fats are linked to CVD and higher mortality. And the ONLY time I have seen a non weight loss LCHF study suggest cholesterol improvements, is when the diet was high in veggies and unsaturated fats. So replacing added sugars with saturated fats is not going to make you healthier. Replacing added sugars with unsaturated fats, will probably make you healthier. Why, because there is a ton of research linking health improvements to monounsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and Omega 3s. Which is probably why the Mediterranean diet is one of the most recommended diets.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/7/1879.abstract0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Out of curiosity, what is the WHO recommendation for daily veg servings and what is your justification for not meeting it?
My point is that those who seem to defend the fact that you [/b]can get sufficient vegetables [/b]with 5% carbs, like yourself, don't actually do so. Whether or not one can do it doesn't have much bearing on her statement. The fact that you have to try pretty hard to do it and that we don't see it done very often actually supports her belief.UK Stats: "In 2013 25% of men, 28% of women and 16% of children (aged 5 to 15 years) consumed the
recommended 5 A DAY."
What does that have to do with anything? People don't pay attention to proper nutrition. Is that supposed to be news?
There is no minimum or sufficient level of vegetable consumption, beyond government guidelines which aren't based on much science as far as I can tell. They are "recommendations". Technically speaking, eating no vegetables is sufficient and beyond that it is just opinion. Yes, eating fewer veggies may require more thought to get all of your nutrients, but it is far from difficult.
No one has ever suffered from a veggie or carbohydrate deficiency.
I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).
It certainly is possible to get nutrition via supplementation, but it does tend to involve a rather precarious balancing that isn't without risk.There certainly seems to be epidemelogical data that suggest vegetable consumption reduces mortality risk from a few conditions, and that taking a multivitamin doesn't carry this benefit, implying, subtractively, there is something in vegetable consumption that isn't a vitamin that provides health benefits.
I would say no. Ketosis is not a state of carb deficiency. It is just a different fuel. That's simply twisting the meaning - semantics.
A diet high in vegetables can reduce mortality, but my guess is that if a diet is high in veggies it is low in grains and added sugars. My guess is those are the problems (unless one gets IR and then all carbs are potentially a concern) and if you avoid those, by replacing them with vegetables, then health improves. Low carb dieters replace grains and sugar with fat, and we are apparently healthier for it.
Any diet that replaces low nutrient foods with high nutrient foods is going to improve your health. And except for in Paleo books, I have never seen any science that would suggest whole grains as bad for your health. On the other hand, there are TONS of studies that would suggest saturated fats are linked to CVD and higher mortality. And the ONLY time I have seen a non weight loss LCHF study suggest cholesterol improvements, is when the diet was high in veggies and unsaturated fats. So replacing added sugars with saturated fats is not going to make you healthier. Replacing added sugars with unsaturated fats, will probably make you healthier. Why, because there is a ton of research linking health improvements to monounsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and Omega 3s. Which is probably why the Mediterranean diet is one of the most recommended diets.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/7/1879.abstract
Ah, yeah, I remember Lemon already discussing that study with Yarwell. The thing mentioned about more monounsaturated, polyunsaturated, and omega 3 fats - this study did that. The experimental subjects weren't getting tons of carnivorous, saturated fat.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions