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 low-carb diets unhealthy? - Dr. T. Colin Campbell
Options
Replies
-
New study seems to suggest high protein diet at least in small sample of women it's not all that great...
This link is to article around the study and not the study itself.
http://time.com/4526448/high-protein-diet-weight-loss-insulin/
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/11/atkins-style-diets-cancel-out-benefits-of-weight-loss-study-finds
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/high-protein-diet-doesnt-help-prevent-type-2-diabetes-study-finds-101216.html0 -
I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.
As is HCLF, which has treated kidney disease and diabetes as far back as the '30s. It seems that just eating better and losing weight might be the key and who would have thought that?
4 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.
As is HCLF, which has treated kidney disease and diabetes as far back as the '30s. It seems that just eating better and losing weight might be the key and who would have thought that?
HCLF was used to treat diabetes? Which type of diabetes? This is the first I've heard of that. With type 1, before the ability to inject insulin, newly diagnosed patients were kept alive for much longer than one would expect because they ate very low carb diets and ingested alcohol (to prevent glycogen release).0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.
As is HCLF, which has treated kidney disease and diabetes as far back as the '30s. It seems that just eating better and losing weight might be the key and who would have thought that?
HCLF was used to treat diabetes? Which type of diabetes? This is the first I've heard of that. With type 1, before the ability to inject insulin, newly diagnosed patients were kept alive for much longer than one would expect because they ate very low carb diets and ingested alcohol (to prevent glycogen release).
I believe it was for Type II not Type 1 and 30's was after Dr. Banting's discovery. Here's a link to a study on WebMD, there are other's but I'm at work and don't have the time to provide more ATM.
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20060726/low-fat-vegan-diet-may-treat-diabetes
Also of interest, there are more and more medical professionals asking for the evidence that it's high blood sugar that is actually the problem. Believe it or not, it's an assumption that the damage is due to high blood sugar but this actually has little evidence right now. It could be a cofactor we aren't actually sure by the looks of it. I'm not saying high blood sugar isnt' the problem, just that more evidence is actually needed and there may be other factors involved that should be addressed as part of a full treatment regime.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.
As is HCLF, which has treated kidney disease and diabetes as far back as the '30s. It seems that just eating better and losing weight might be the key and who would have thought that?
HCLF was used to treat diabetes? Which type of diabetes? This is the first I've heard of that. With type 1, before the ability to inject insulin, newly diagnosed patients were kept alive for much longer than one would expect because they ate very low carb diets and ingested alcohol (to prevent glycogen release).
I believe it was for Type II not Type 1 and 30's was after Dr. Banting's discovery. Here's a link to a study on WebMD, there are other's but I'm at work and don't have the time to provide more ATM.
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20060726/low-fat-vegan-diet-may-treat-diabetes
Also of interest, there are more and more medical professionals asking for the evidence that it's high blood sugar that is actually the problem. Believe it or not, it's an assumption that the damage is due to high blood sugar but this actually has little evidence right now. It could be a cofactor we aren't actually sure by the looks of it. I'm not saying high blood sugar isnt' the problem, just that more evidence is actually needed and there may be other factors involved that should be addressed as part of a full treatment regime.
This just compares a type 2 group eating 75% carbs to a group eating 60%-70% carbs... so basically compared 2 groups of high carb diets, one of which was vegan and the other was not. Without reading the actual article (which I don't have time to do right now either), it isn't clear whether the vegan group truly ate more carbs or if total carb intake was lower (even with 5%-15% greater portion of diet) as a result of lower calories. Since the vegan group lost twice as much weight, it sounds likely that the vegan group consumed significantly fewer calories (and therefore fewer actual carbs).
In both groups, diabetes management improved with weight loss. The group that lost more weight had more significant BG improvements. None of that is surprising... the end result, regardless of carb consumption, is that almost all type 2 patients who lose weight can improve BG's. While this study doesn't even consider low carb options to lose weight, the same result of improved BG's would likely result from essentially any weight loss-based diet available.
So I agree with the study results: Type 2 patients who lose weight will have better BG's. This is within the medium-term time frame during which it is practical to lose weight, of course.
My point, which the study you mentioned doesn't address either way: In the very short term (i.e. minutes and hours), type 2 patients who eat very low carb will have better BG's.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.
As is HCLF, which has treated kidney disease and diabetes as far back as the '30s. It seems that just eating better and losing weight might be the key and who would have thought that?
HCLF was used to treat diabetes? Which type of diabetes? This is the first I've heard of that. With type 1, before the ability to inject insulin, newly diagnosed patients were kept alive for much longer than one would expect because they ate very low carb diets and ingested alcohol (to prevent glycogen release).
I believe it was for Type II not Type 1 and 30's was after Dr. Banting's discovery. Here's a link to a study on WebMD, there are other's but I'm at work and don't have the time to provide more ATM.
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20060726/low-fat-vegan-diet-may-treat-diabetes
Also of interest, there are more and more medical professionals asking for the evidence that it's high blood sugar that is actually the problem. Believe it or not, it's an assumption that the damage is due to high blood sugar but this actually has little evidence right now. It could be a cofactor we aren't actually sure by the looks of it. I'm not saying high blood sugar isnt' the problem, just that more evidence is actually needed and there may be other factors involved that should be addressed as part of a full treatment regime.
This just compares a type 2 group eating 75% carbs to a group eating 60%-70% carbs... so basically compared 2 groups of high carb diets, one of which was vegan and the other was not. Without reading the actual article (which I don't have time to do right now either), it isn't clear whether the vegan group truly ate more carbs or if total carb intake was lower (even with 5%-15% greater portion of diet) as a result of lower calories. Since the vegan group lost twice as much weight, it sounds likely that the vegan group consumed significantly fewer calories (and therefore fewer actual carbs).
In both groups, diabetes management improved with weight loss. The group that lost more weight had more significant BG improvements. None of that is surprising... the end result, regardless of carb consumption, is that almost all type 2 patients who lose weight can improve BG's. While this study doesn't even consider low carb options to lose weight, the same result of improved BG's would likely result from essentially any weight loss-based diet available.
So I agree with the study results: Type 2 patients who lose weight will have better BG's. This is within the medium-term time frame during which it is practical to lose weight, of course.
My point, which the study you mentioned doesn't address either way: In the very short term (i.e. minutes and hours), type 2 patients who eat very low carb will have better BG's.
The fact is that for Type II any weight loss helps but low fat seems to help more however, it was compared to ADA and not low carb. Do you have a controlled study that compares the two directly?0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.
As is HCLF, which has treated kidney disease and diabetes as far back as the '30s. It seems that just eating better and losing weight might be the key and who would have thought that?
HCLF was used to treat diabetes? Which type of diabetes? This is the first I've heard of that. With type 1, before the ability to inject insulin, newly diagnosed patients were kept alive for much longer than one would expect because they ate very low carb diets and ingested alcohol (to prevent glycogen release).
I believe it was for Type II not Type 1 and 30's was after Dr. Banting's discovery. Here's a link to a study on WebMD, there are other's but I'm at work and don't have the time to provide more ATM.
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20060726/low-fat-vegan-diet-may-treat-diabetes
Also of interest, there are more and more medical professionals asking for the evidence that it's high blood sugar that is actually the problem. Believe it or not, it's an assumption that the damage is due to high blood sugar but this actually has little evidence right now. It could be a cofactor we aren't actually sure by the looks of it. I'm not saying high blood sugar isnt' the problem, just that more evidence is actually needed and there may be other factors involved that should be addressed as part of a full treatment regime.
This just compares a type 2 group eating 75% carbs to a group eating 60%-70% carbs... so basically compared 2 groups of high carb diets, one of which was vegan and the other was not. Without reading the actual article (which I don't have time to do right now either), it isn't clear whether the vegan group truly ate more carbs or if total carb intake was lower (even with 5%-15% greater portion of diet) as a result of lower calories. Since the vegan group lost twice as much weight, it sounds likely that the vegan group consumed significantly fewer calories (and therefore fewer actual carbs).
In both groups, diabetes management improved with weight loss. The group that lost more weight had more significant BG improvements. None of that is surprising... the end result, regardless of carb consumption, is that almost all type 2 patients who lose weight can improve BG's. While this study doesn't even consider low carb options to lose weight, the same result of improved BG's would likely result from essentially any weight loss-based diet available.
So I agree with the study results: Type 2 patients who lose weight will have better BG's. This is within the medium-term time frame during which it is practical to lose weight, of course.
My point, which the study you mentioned doesn't address either way: In the very short term (i.e. minutes and hours), type 2 patients who eat very low carb will have better BG's.
The fact is that for Type II any weight loss helps but low fat seems to help more however, it was compared to ADA and not low carb. Do you have a controlled study that compares the two directly?
Like you, I'm at work right now and am unable to access any repository of journal articles ATM. But you can probably access them just as quickly as I can.
My point is that your study compares high carb vegan to high carb ADA. It appears the difference between the groups involved in the study is actually calorie intake, and the results are that greater weight loss occurred for the group eating fewer calories. Predictably, type 2's in the group with greater weight loss improved BG's more.
The study you mentioned doesn't add anything to help answer the question: Are low carb diets unhealthy?
It does provide evidence to answer this question: Does weight loss improve symptoms of type 2 diabetes?0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.
As is HCLF, which has treated kidney disease and diabetes as far back as the '30s. It seems that just eating better and losing weight might be the key and who would have thought that?
HCLF was used to treat diabetes? Which type of diabetes? This is the first I've heard of that. With type 1, before the ability to inject insulin, newly diagnosed patients were kept alive for much longer than one would expect because they ate very low carb diets and ingested alcohol (to prevent glycogen release).
I believe it was for Type II not Type 1 and 30's was after Dr. Banting's discovery. Here's a link to a study on WebMD, there are other's but I'm at work and don't have the time to provide more ATM.
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20060726/low-fat-vegan-diet-may-treat-diabetes
Also of interest, there are more and more medical professionals asking for the evidence that it's high blood sugar that is actually the problem. Believe it or not, it's an assumption that the damage is due to high blood sugar but this actually has little evidence right now. It could be a cofactor we aren't actually sure by the looks of it. I'm not saying high blood sugar isnt' the problem, just that more evidence is actually needed and there may be other factors involved that should be addressed as part of a full treatment regime.
This just compares a type 2 group eating 75% carbs to a group eating 60%-70% carbs... so basically compared 2 groups of high carb diets, one of which was vegan and the other was not. Without reading the actual article (which I don't have time to do right now either), it isn't clear whether the vegan group truly ate more carbs or if total carb intake was lower (even with 5%-15% greater portion of diet) as a result of lower calories. Since the vegan group lost twice as much weight, it sounds likely that the vegan group consumed significantly fewer calories (and therefore fewer actual carbs).
In both groups, diabetes management improved with weight loss. The group that lost more weight had more significant BG improvements. None of that is surprising... the end result, regardless of carb consumption, is that almost all type 2 patients who lose weight can improve BG's. While this study doesn't even consider low carb options to lose weight, the same result of improved BG's would likely result from essentially any weight loss-based diet available.
So I agree with the study results: Type 2 patients who lose weight will have better BG's. This is within the medium-term time frame during which it is practical to lose weight, of course.
My point, which the study you mentioned doesn't address either way: In the very short term (i.e. minutes and hours), type 2 patients who eat very low carb will have better BG's.
The fact is that for Type II any weight loss helps but low fat seems to help more however, it was compared to ADA and not low carb. Do you have a controlled study that compares the two directly?
Like you, I'm at work right now and am unable to access any repository of journal articles ATM. But you can probably access them just as quickly as I can.
My point is that your study compares high carb vegan to high carb ADA. It appears the difference between the groups involved in the study is actually calorie intake, and the results are that greater weight loss occurred for the group eating fewer calories. Predictably, type 2's in the group with greater weight loss improved BG's more.
The study you mentioned doesn't add anything to help answer the question: Are low carb diets unhealthy?
It does provide evidence to answer this question: Does weight loss improve symptoms of type 2 diabetes?
Simply put I don't see low carb as unhealthy nor do I see high carb as unhealthy. Outside of things such as obesity there doesn't seem to be a simple answer, if there is one, to what WOE is best for optimal health. As long as you hit your minimums of micros and macros their seems to be little evidence to preference one macro blend over another.1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.
As is HCLF, which has treated kidney disease and diabetes as far back as the '30s. It seems that just eating better and losing weight might be the key and who would have thought that?
HCLF was used to treat diabetes? Which type of diabetes? This is the first I've heard of that. With type 1, before the ability to inject insulin, newly diagnosed patients were kept alive for much longer than one would expect because they ate very low carb diets and ingested alcohol (to prevent glycogen release).
I believe it was for Type II not Type 1 and 30's was after Dr. Banting's discovery. Here's a link to a study on WebMD, there are other's but I'm at work and don't have the time to provide more ATM.
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20060726/low-fat-vegan-diet-may-treat-diabetes
Also of interest, there are more and more medical professionals asking for the evidence that it's high blood sugar that is actually the problem. Believe it or not, it's an assumption that the damage is due to high blood sugar but this actually has little evidence right now. It could be a cofactor we aren't actually sure by the looks of it. I'm not saying high blood sugar isnt' the problem, just that more evidence is actually needed and there may be other factors involved that should be addressed as part of a full treatment regime.
This just compares a type 2 group eating 75% carbs to a group eating 60%-70% carbs... so basically compared 2 groups of high carb diets, one of which was vegan and the other was not. Without reading the actual article (which I don't have time to do right now either), it isn't clear whether the vegan group truly ate more carbs or if total carb intake was lower (even with 5%-15% greater portion of diet) as a result of lower calories. Since the vegan group lost twice as much weight, it sounds likely that the vegan group consumed significantly fewer calories (and therefore fewer actual carbs).
In both groups, diabetes management improved with weight loss. The group that lost more weight had more significant BG improvements. None of that is surprising... the end result, regardless of carb consumption, is that almost all type 2 patients who lose weight can improve BG's. While this study doesn't even consider low carb options to lose weight, the same result of improved BG's would likely result from essentially any weight loss-based diet available.
So I agree with the study results: Type 2 patients who lose weight will have better BG's. This is within the medium-term time frame during which it is practical to lose weight, of course.
My point, which the study you mentioned doesn't address either way: In the very short term (i.e. minutes and hours), type 2 patients who eat very low carb will have better BG's.
The fact is that for Type II any weight loss helps but low fat seems to help more however, it was compared to ADA and not low carb. Do you have a controlled study that compares the two directly?
Like you, I'm at work right now and am unable to access any repository of journal articles ATM. But you can probably access them just as quickly as I can.
My point is that your study compares high carb vegan to high carb ADA. It appears the difference between the groups involved in the study is actually calorie intake, and the results are that greater weight loss occurred for the group eating fewer calories. Predictably, type 2's in the group with greater weight loss improved BG's more.
The study you mentioned doesn't add anything to help answer the question: Are low carb diets unhealthy?
It does provide evidence to answer this question: Does weight loss improve symptoms of type 2 diabetes?
Simply put I don't see low carb as unhealthy nor do I see high carb as unhealthy. Outside of things such as obesity there doesn't seem to be a simple answer, if there is one, to what WOE is best for optimal health. As long as you hit your minimums of micros and macros their seems to be little evidence to preference one macro blend over another.
I mostly agree, but it really depends on the individual's health conditions and training goals. Additionally, it isn't just a question of high carb or low carb to me... it is a question of timing just as much as quantity.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I'm not sure how an eating plan that lowered my triglycerides by 80%, lowered over all collateral 40%, raised HDL, lowered LDL could be bad for my heart health.
And LCHF is also recommended for diabetics.
As is HCLF, which has treated kidney disease and diabetes as far back as the '30s. It seems that just eating better and losing weight might be the key and who would have thought that?
HCLF was used to treat diabetes? Which type of diabetes? This is the first I've heard of that. With type 1, before the ability to inject insulin, newly diagnosed patients were kept alive for much longer than one would expect because they ate very low carb diets and ingested alcohol (to prevent glycogen release).
The WFPB people (often high carb) claim great support with T2D and have various studies to support it. It may be covered in the Denise Minger piece on low fat diets I cited above, I'd have to check. The turn around is just as fast as that claimed by LCHF.0 -
The newest study Oct 11 is showing that high protein diets may not protect you against heart and diabetes issues after all. Links above.0
-
I need to be on low carb for digestive problems. I have never felt better. There are always going to be critics on any diet, so to each their own.
Low carb diets can be extremely healthy if you are getting your carbs from green leafy salads, cruciferous veggies , mushrooms and squash varieties and so on. You can eat tonnes of the stuff and still remain low in carbs. Very heart healthy. Just my take though.1 -
New study seems to suggest high protein diet at least in small sample of women it's not all that great...
This link is to article around the study and not the study itself.
http://time.com/4526448/high-protein-diet-weight-loss-insulin/
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/11/atkins-style-diets-cancel-out-benefits-of-weight-loss-study-finds
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/high-protein-diet-doesnt-help-prevent-type-2-diabetes-study-finds-101216.html
As you say, this seems to have looked at a higher protein diet, rather than an Atkins, or low carb/LCHF diet.1 -
All I care to know concerning Carbohydrates, is that it's a macro~nutrient & thus is essential! How's greatly reducing/attempting to eliminate a nutrient, any different than those that attempt to do the same; with a food group (unless for medical reasoning) & this is coming from someone, whom's suppose to consume low Carbohydrate/high Protein because of liver disease? So I consume the minimum of 130 grams daily, no less/no more! I don't support unnecessary extremism, in any facet; of life!0
-
DeficitDuchess wrote: »All I care to know concerning Carbohydrates, is that it's a macro~nutrient & thus is essential! How's greatly reducing/attempting to eliminate a nutrient, any different than those that attempt to do the same; with a food group (unless for medical reasoning) & this is coming from someone, whom's suppose to consume low Carbohydrate/high Protein because of liver disease? So I consume the minimum of 130 grams daily, no less/no more! I don't support unnecessary extremism, in any facet; of life!
You are low carb. Less than 150g per day is a low carb diet. By what you've said, you are extreme.... Does it really feel that extreme?
There is no minimum carb level for good health. There is no such thing as essential carbohydrates. I know a few people who have eaten under 10g of carbs per day for years and they are quite healthy. Their liver creates the glucose they need through gluconeogenesis. There is no need to worry about not having enough carbs. Technically, there is no nutritional need to eat carbs.
Plus once you are fat adapted, and you rely on ketones more for fuel, your body's glucose needs actually falls. The body does need some glucose, but you don't need to eat carbs to get it.
But that's besides the point. Low carb is exactly that; a lower level of carb consumption than most. It isn't often zero carb. There aren't many actual carnivores out there anymore.2 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »All I care to know concerning Carbohydrates, is that it's a macro~nutrient & thus is essential! How's greatly reducing/attempting to eliminate a nutrient, any different than those that attempt to do the same; with a food group (unless for medical reasoning) & this is coming from someone, whom's suppose to consume low Carbohydrate/high Protein because of liver disease? So I consume the minimum of 130 grams daily, no less/no more! I don't support unnecessary extremism, in any facet; of life!
You are low carb. Less than 150g per day is a low carb diet. By what you've said, you are extreme.... Does it really feel that extreme?
There is no minimum carb level for good health. There is no such thing as essential carbohydrates. I know a few people who have eaten under 10g of carbs per day for years and they are quite healthy. Their liver creates the glucose they need through gluconeogenesis. There is no need to worry about not having enough carbs. Technically, there is no nutritional need to eat carbs.
Plus once you are fat adapted, and you rely on ketones more for fuel, your body's glucose needs actually falls. The body does need some glucose, but you don't need to eat carbs to get it.
But that's besides the point. Low carb is exactly that; a lower level of carb consumption than most. It isn't often zero carb. There aren't many actual carnivores out there anymore.
I would question the bold, as I question it for raw diets, considering how often the need for supplementation. A diet that requires supplementation does not address nutritional needs (this is outside of medical conditions that require supplementation).0 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »All I care to know concerning Carbohydrates, is that it's a macro~nutrient & thus is essential! How's greatly reducing/attempting to eliminate a nutrient, any different than those that attempt to do the same; with a food group (unless for medical reasoning) & this is coming from someone, whom's suppose to consume low Carbohydrate/high Protein because of liver disease? So I consume the minimum of 130 grams daily, no less/no more! I don't support unnecessary extremism, in any facet; of life!
You are low carb. Less than 150g per day is a low carb diet. By what you've said, you are extreme.... Does it really feel that extreme?
There is no minimum carb level for good health. There is no such thing as essential carbohydrates. I know a few people who have eaten under 10g of carbs per day for years and they are quite healthy. Their liver creates the glucose they need through gluconeogenesis. There is no need to worry about not having enough carbs. Technically, there is no nutritional need to eat carbs.
Plus once you are fat adapted, and you rely on ketones more for fuel, your body's glucose needs actually falls. The body does need some glucose, but you don't need to eat carbs to get it.
But that's besides the point. Low carb is exactly that; a lower level of carb consumption than most. It isn't often zero carb. There aren't many actual carnivores out there anymore.
I didn't deny being low carbohydrates, as in the recommend minimum; for my height, weight, etc. Extremism is below the minimum and/or attempting to eliminate them! Plus as I stated, I have liver disease; therefore my liver doesn't function normally! Also substituting excessive amounts of Carbohydrates, with Protein; isn't healthy!
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/extra-protein-is-a-decent-dietary-choice-but-dont-overdo-it-2013050161450 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »All I care to know concerning Carbohydrates, is that it's a macro~nutrient & thus is essential! How's greatly reducing/attempting to eliminate a nutrient, any different than those that attempt to do the same; with a food group (unless for medical reasoning) & this is coming from someone, whom's suppose to consume low Carbohydrate/high Protein because of liver disease? So I consume the minimum of 130 grams daily, no less/no more! I don't support unnecessary extremism, in any facet; of life!
You are low carb. Less than 150g per day is a low carb diet. By what you've said, you are extreme.... Does it really feel that extreme?
There is no minimum carb level for good health. There is no such thing as essential carbohydrates. I know a few people who have eaten under 10g of carbs per day for years and they are quite healthy. Their liver creates the glucose they need through gluconeogenesis. There is no need to worry about not having enough carbs. Technically, there is no nutritional need to eat carbs.
Plus once you are fat adapted, and you rely on ketones more for fuel, your body's glucose needs actually falls. The body does need some glucose, but you don't need to eat carbs to get it.
But that's besides the point. Low carb is exactly that; a lower level of carb consumption than most. It isn't often zero carb. There aren't many actual carnivores out there anymore.
I didn't deny being low carbohydrates, as in the recommend minimum; for my height, weight, etc. Extremism is below the minimum and/or attempting to eliminate them! Plus as I stated, I have liver disease; therefore my liver doesn't function normally! Also substituting excessive amounts of Carbohydrates, with Protein; isn't healthy!
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/extra-protein-is-a-decent-dietary-choice-but-dont-overdo-it-201305016145
Why do you assume that reducing carbs must mean eating unhealthily high levels of protein? Probably the most common low carb WOE is LCHF. I don't hear from many people eating LCHP because that isn't really a thing except among a few people who didn't do their homework.1 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »All I care to know concerning Carbohydrates, is that it's a macro~nutrient & thus is essential! How's greatly reducing/attempting to eliminate a nutrient, any different than those that attempt to do the same; with a food group (unless for medical reasoning) & this is coming from someone, whom's suppose to consume low Carbohydrate/high Protein because of liver disease? So I consume the minimum of 130 grams daily, no less/no more! I don't support unnecessary extremism, in any facet; of life!
You are low carb. Less than 150g per day is a low carb diet. By what you've said, you are extreme.... Does it really feel that extreme?
There is no minimum carb level for good health. There is no such thing as essential carbohydrates. I know a few people who have eaten under 10g of carbs per day for years and they are quite healthy. Their liver creates the glucose they need through gluconeogenesis. There is no need to worry about not having enough carbs. Technically, there is no nutritional need to eat carbs.
Plus once you are fat adapted, and you rely on ketones more for fuel, your body's glucose needs actually falls. The body does need some glucose, but you don't need to eat carbs to get it.
But that's besides the point. Low carb is exactly that; a lower level of carb consumption than most. It isn't often zero carb. There aren't many actual carnivores out there anymore.
I would question the bold, as I question it for raw diets, considering how often the need for supplementation. A diet that requires supplementation does not address nutritional needs (this is outside of medical conditions that require supplementation).
The "zero carbers" I know (who eat under 5g of carbs most days) don't supplement at all, nor do they appear to need it.
I don't believe that there are any micronutrient deficiencies that occur in a carnivorous diet. Some people worry about the lack of fibre, but fibre appears to mainly be needed when eating carbs.
This doesn't apply to me though. I have found veggies to be something I don't want to give up, although I tend to feel better the fewer I eat.0 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »All I care to know concerning Carbohydrates, is that it's a macro~nutrient & thus is essential! How's greatly reducing/attempting to eliminate a nutrient, any different than those that attempt to do the same; with a food group (unless for medical reasoning) & this is coming from someone, whom's suppose to consume low Carbohydrate/high Protein because of liver disease? So I consume the minimum of 130 grams daily, no less/no more! I don't support unnecessary extremism, in any facet; of life!
You are low carb. Less than 150g per day is a low carb diet. By what you've said, you are extreme.... Does it really feel that extreme?
There is no minimum carb level for good health. There is no such thing as essential carbohydrates. I know a few people who have eaten under 10g of carbs per day for years and they are quite healthy. Their liver creates the glucose they need through gluconeogenesis. There is no need to worry about not having enough carbs. Technically, there is no nutritional need to eat carbs.
Plus once you are fat adapted, and you rely on ketones more for fuel, your body's glucose needs actually falls. The body does need some glucose, but you don't need to eat carbs to get it.
But that's besides the point. Low carb is exactly that; a lower level of carb consumption than most. It isn't often zero carb. There aren't many actual carnivores out there anymore.
I didn't deny being low carbohydrates, as in the recommend minimum; for my height, weight, etc. Extremism is below the minimum and/or attempting to eliminate them! Plus as I stated, I have liver disease; therefore my liver doesn't function normally! Also substituting excessive amounts of Carbohydrates, with Protein; isn't healthy!
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/extra-protein-is-a-decent-dietary-choice-but-dont-overdo-it-201305016145
There is no minimum carbohydrate level. Perhaps you may need to eat 130g per day because your liver is unable to make glucose.... You are unable to perform gluconeogenesis? I sort of doubt this, but I apologize if I am wrong. If one cannot make glucose then I imagine one would need to be waking up a few times throughout the night to eat carbs, and I imagine one would need to eat frequently throughout the day.
Everyone else with a functioning liver should be able to make glucose to meet their requirements without a problem. A very low carb diet is often very beneficial to those with NAFLD too.
But I completely agree that substituting excessive protein for carbs is not always a good idea. Most low carbers substitute fat for carbs and keep protein moderate.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions