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 diets that drastically reduce one of the macros sustainable if there's no medical necessity?
Replies
-
I've been eating low carb for three years. For me, it is quite sustainable (I couldn't imagine ever going back to the lower fat, higher fiber woe I used to suffer through). No adverse health effects. I've never been formally tested for IR, but did have a couple glucose screenings during my last pregnancy (I was eating low carb during the pregnancy, not super low, but still under 120g per day) and passed both, no problem (was tested twice due to age and family history). No thyroid issues. No digestive issues (if anything I'm more "regular" now that I've eliminated most grains and am getting less fiber but more fat). Energy levels have improved; I won't say I have more energy now, but I certainly have steadier energy throughout the day - no more 3 pm slump (stable blood sugar helps stabilize energy levels) and no more reactive hypoglycemia (that *kitten* is scary). Cholesterol profile improved (raised HDL, lowered triglycerides as compared to my low fat, high fiber diet); total cholesterol is a bit higher, but I have been pregnant or nursing (at times both) for the past ten years, so it's hard to say whether my cholesterol is higher because of diet or because of my body working to meet my babies' needs (last cholesterol test I had before starting low carb was also before I had kids). I suppose I might not be aware of any "nutritional deficiencies" but there is nothing in grains, starchy veggies, or high sugar fruit that cannot be obtained (often in greater amounts for fewer calories) from meat, fibrous veggies, or savory/low sugar fruit. Not too worried about some vague "grain deficiency" lol. I would say my inflammation is drastically reduced as evidenced by the complete clearing of my chronic, moderate to severe eczema. I attribute that to all but eliminating wheat and inflammatory seed and vegetable oils as well as getting adequate saturated fat and cholesterol for probably the first time in my adult life.
Is LCHF for everyone? Perhaps not. But I knew six weeks into it that LCHF is simply the way I must eat for the rest of my life, unless I decide I want to go back to being fat, hangry, hypoglycemic, and having my cracked, bleeding hands covered in insanely itchy weeping blisters. Not a hard choice really
6 -
I think once the minimums (of the three) are met to maintain health (note: I said health and not performance), then an imbalance toward any of the macros is sustainable. This is why you see a diverse range of macros between various populations in different geographies. A person can be healthy eating 80% of their diet from carbs just like another person can be healthy eating 80% of their diet from fat (again, assuming minimums of the other macros have been met to ensure health and assuming that weight is within healthy range).
This is what I think too.
Of course, what's sustainable in a society where it's the only option vs. one in which we have endless options is going to be different, so for us personal preference and values and beliefs are going to come into play too, but I think all such diets could be sustainable under the right circumstances or for the right person, definitely.0 -
distinctlybeautiful wrote: »When I say diet, I just mean food intake. When I say sustainable, I guess I'm not sure just exactly how long I mean.. let's say years.
I think it would greatly depend on what you mean by "drastically" and "sustainable".
Humans can exist for quite some time with any macro reduced pretty low. Our bodies are very adaptable.
But whether someone would stick to a diet with a drastically reduced macro is different matter. It's hard to deprive yourself of something that is readily available if you enjoy it.0 -
I have been LCHF for about a year. I did start it due to medical reasons though. I doubt I would have given up candy or soda or potato chips unless I had a reason - sadly.
Now that I am used to LCHF, I can happily eat that way for life. Plus I noticed a few health benefits that I would hate to give up.
Unless there are benefits to a restrictive WoE, such as tasty food, health benefits, moral reasons (like veganism) or athletic performance, I doubt anyone would stick with it. The dieter needs to get something out of a restrictive WoE or why do it?Traveler120 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Depends on preference and macro. Low protein or low fat diets are a bad idea. Low carb can be sustained for a long time without health issues.
Umm..not quite. There are several problems associated with low carb diets:
-Increases insulin resistance.
-Thyroid problems.
-Digestive issues. Lower in fiber. Slowed digestion.
-Low energy, which can impact ability to maintain an active lifestyle.
-Typically high in saturated fat, which raises cholesterol, which can increase risk of cardiovascular disease.
-Eliminates or limits starchy gut healthy foods like potatoes, beans, grains etc which leads to poor colon health.
-Most carby foods like fruits, starchy veg, potatoes, grains, beans etc are nutrient dense. Fats in and of themselves have few to no vitamins and minerals. So a higher fat, lower carb diet is less nutrient dense.
-Typically higher in meat which can contribute to inflammation issues.
-etc.
This isn't exactly accurate.
LCHF does not increase IR, it generally lowers it but as others said, physiological IR is a short term issue that disappears after a couple days of normal carb levels.
As far as I know it has no effect on thyroid problems except perhaps to reduce inflammation which could help thyroid function. I have hashimotos and have noticed no difference since changing my diet.
Digestion is not slowed. Food passage occurs at the same rate.
Low energy is a myth. Some experience low energy at first due to an electrolyte imbalance but it isn't due to lack of glucose. Some athletes may notice a short term decrease in athletic performance if they are switching to keto but it doesn't last. If one is worried about short bursts of energy lacking, like power lifting or sprinting, eat a few carbs before the activity - easy.
Sat fats do not raise cholesterol in most people, although excessive carb consumption, especially if paired with high fats, may raise cholesterol.
Does not lead to poor colon health.
I agree that veggies are a nice source of nutrient dense foods, but most protein rich foods and meats are also nutrient dense.
Meat eating, unless highly processed, does not appear to lead to inflammation. Often the opposite.4 -
Turn the food pyramid upside down.
But we are all individuals with no one size fits all meal plan. But a good rule of thumb is that if the government says you do eat a certain way, do the opposite. Such things are driven more by politics than science. The food pyramid came out pushing more carbs/grain consumption after the government started subsidizing grain.
Over time, it has come out that basically everything 'they' told us was wrong.
Butter is good for you. Whole eggs are better for you than fractured eggs (egg white alone).
People that are natural distance runners have a higher ability to utilize carbs without turning it to stored fat. Hence carb loading works for distance runner prior to a big event like a marathon, but may not work so well for recreational or less natural runners.
Some do well following a 4:1 carb to protein for work outs. I don't.
Find what works that one can maintain.
No magic bullet.1 -
-
"There's no such thing as an essential carbohydrate." --Will Brinks2
-
CipherZero wrote: »"There's no such thing as an essential carbohydrate." --Will Brinks
Correct, because your body is so dependent on glucose, it would be foolish to trust you to eat enough to not die consistently in all situations.5 -
CipherZero wrote: »"There's no such thing as an essential carbohydrate." --Will Brinks
Correct. Not essential, meaning the body can makes it's own (glucose) if it has to.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »CipherZero wrote: »"There's no such thing as an essential carbohydrate." --Will Brinks
Correct, because your body is so dependent on glucose, it would be foolish to trust you to eat enough to not die consistently in all situations.
Same can be said of cholesterol.
1 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »CipherZero wrote: »"There's no such thing as an essential carbohydrate." --Will Brinks
Correct, because your body is so dependent on glucose, it would be foolish to trust you to eat enough to not die consistently in all situations.
Same can be said of cholesterol.
Correct, the body can make it's own cholesterol too...1 -
I think sustainability is an individual thing. What is sustainable for one may not be for another and visa versa.
It personally wouldn't be sustainable for me as I prefer a balanced and varied diet.2 -
Does one of those macros make you feel really good/really bad.0
-
tlflag1620 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »CipherZero wrote: »"There's no such thing as an essential carbohydrate." --Will Brinks
Correct, because your body is so dependent on glucose, it would be foolish to trust you to eat enough to not die consistently in all situations.
Same can be said of cholesterol.
And ketones.0 -
ITS OWN not IT'S OWN
geez
...sorry 'bout that.2 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Depends on preference and macro. Low protein or low fat diets are a bad idea. Low carb can be sustained for a long time without health issues.
Why?
Why what?
Why are low fat and low protein diets a bad idea. Or why can low carb be sustained for a long time?
Low fat diets (barring certain medical conditions) tend to not provide sufficient fats for normal hormonal production and metabolic function. Basically you need fats to absorb vitamins, to function normally, to repair tissue. If you under eat fats long term (as studies in the 70-80s showed) you will damage your body.
Low protein diets will result in loss of lean body mass - generally when we loss weight we are trying to keep or minimise the loss of muscle, bones, connective tissue. Eating insufficient protein long term will also have a negative impact on liver function, metabolism, etc...
We can go into specific details, those are just summaries.
As to carbs, a variety of low to high carb diets exist - and aside from possible benefits that these may or may not deliver one can cut carbs without significant issues.
For the actual numbers of what makes up the recommended diet - take a look at
ttp://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets
Can you please post a link or citation for the low fat studies you refer to? I've been trying to find human studies based on diets of actual food (as opposed to synthetic fat free solutions administered by nasogastric tube or IV). I'm coming up empty. Any help would be much appreciated.
0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Depends on preference and macro. Low protein or low fat diets are a bad idea. Low carb can be sustained for a long time without health issues.
Why?
Why what?
Why are low fat and low protein diets a bad idea. Or why can low carb be sustained for a long time?
Low fat diets (barring certain medical conditions) tend to not provide sufficient fats for normal hormonal production and metabolic function. Basically you need fats to absorb vitamins, to function normally, to repair tissue. If you under eat fats long term (as studies in the 70-80s showed) you will damage your body.
Low protein diets will result in loss of lean body mass - generally when we loss weight we are trying to keep or minimise the loss of muscle, bones, connective tissue. Eating insufficient protein long term will also have a negative impact on liver function, metabolism, etc...
We can go into specific details, those are just summaries.
As to carbs, a variety of low to high carb diets exist - and aside from possible benefits that these may or may not deliver one can cut carbs without significant issues.
For the actual numbers of what makes up the recommended diet - take a look at
ttp://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets
Can you please post a link or citation for the low fat studies you refer to? I've been trying to find human studies based on diets of actual food (as opposed to synthetic fat free solutions administered by nasogastric tube or IV). I'm coming up empty. Any help would be much appreciated.
Are you looking for the risks related to minimum fats from low fat low cal diets?
The studies that showed negative impact by going below minimum fat are outlined in the adaptive thermo thread on my profile (I can't access my profile, thanks mfp.)
Look also at http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/FFA_summary_rec_conclusion.pdf for fat recommendation and the reason behind them.
1
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