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
-
I'm in the camp that believes that we have three macros: Carbs, Proteins, Fats...and that each of them serve a purpose and none of them are "evil" and there is no particular benefit from scrapping and scrambling and fighting to avoid one of them over the others. It would not at all suprise me that basically forcing your body to make up from a deficiency because you didn't provide it by someone by running a bunch of biochemical pathways backwards to synthetsis what you couldn't be bothered to give it thus creating a bunch of waste products could be a bad thing over time.
Just eat food, not to much though.6 -
Out of curosity has anyone looked into the history of diet fads to see if there was a time where there was an "all carb" phase where people were trying to avoid all fats or avoid all proteins and focus solely on carbs?0
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Out of curosity has anyone looked into the history of diet fads to see if there was a time where there was an "all carb" phase where people were trying to avoid all fats or avoid all proteins and focus solely on carbs?
I think the closest we got was the 80s, 90's and to the turn of the century. Low fat foods, because they had fewer calories, was quite the fad. Dean Ornish and all that...
I don't think anyone has ever pushed an all carb phase, besides sailors and explorers a few hundred years ago, since all carbs will kill you eventually.0 -
So will living!0
-
queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
My indication, was solely based upon; my own situation! As I mentioned that, I am supposed to be; low Carbohydrate/high Protein!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.
As mentioned in the link, Carbohydrates're necessary for brain function; as I was told by my Registered Dietitian also & thus if it's necessary for brain function, then there must be a minimum; although the amounts're debatable due to an individual's factors!0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html1 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »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.
As mentioned in the link, Carbohydrates're necessary for brain function; as I was told by my Registered Dietitian also & thus if it's necessary for brain function, then there must be a minimum; although the amounts're debatable due to an individual's factors!
Your dietitian has it wrong, I'm afraid. Carbs are not necessary to eat unless your liver is not working (gluconeogenesis). Glucose is needed by the brain (and some other parts) but there is no need to eat carbs to get that glucose... although that is a perfectly fine choice for many people.
This is a brief explanation from a very low carb approach: http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/gluconeogenesis.html1 -
queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either.
Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps. 0 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »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.
As mentioned in the link, Carbohydrates're necessary for brain function; as I was told by my Registered Dietitian also & thus if it's necessary for brain function, then there must be a minimum; although the amounts're debatable due to an individual's factors!
Your dietitian has it wrong, I'm afraid. Carbs are not necessary to eat unless your liver is not working (gluconeogenesis). Glucose is needed by the brain (and some other parts) but there is no need to eat carbs to get that glucose... although that is a perfectly fine choice for many people.
This is a brief explanation from a very low carb approach: http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/gluconeogenesis.html
So Harvard & a Registered Dietitian's wrong? What's the scientific origin of this link, it doesn't seem reputable; anyone could've began this website to promote their own bias/agenda!0 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »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.
As mentioned in the link, Carbohydrates're necessary for brain function; as I was told by my Registered Dietitian also & thus if it's necessary for brain function, then there must be a minimum; although the amounts're debatable due to an individual's factors!
Your dietitian has it wrong, I'm afraid. Carbs are not necessary to eat unless your liver is not working (gluconeogenesis). Glucose is needed by the brain (and some other parts) but there is no need to eat carbs to get that glucose... although that is a perfectly fine choice for many people.
This is a brief explanation from a very low carb approach: http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/gluconeogenesis.html
So Harvard & a Registered Dietitian's wrong? What's the scientific origin of this link, it doesn't seem reputable; anyone could've began this website to promote their bias/agenda!
Well, yes. Or it wasn't explained well so you misunderstood.
Gluconeogenesis provides all the glucose your body could need, otherwise you would be dead within two days if you didn't eat. Fasting would be deadly.
It is now widely known and accepted that carbs are a non-essential macronutrient, meaning you can live without eating it because your body can produce what glucose you need. Most choose to eat carbs because of personal preference, but people can limit their carb intake as much as they desire.
Here's a more in depth explanation: http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/gluconeogenesis.php
Or this letter from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/75/5/951.2.long
This is an interesting blog (not as low carb biased) on where that 130g minimum might have come from: http://graemethomasonline.com/carbohydrate-daily-requirements/
2 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
My indication, was solely based upon; my own situation! As I mentioned that, I am supposed to be; low Carbohydrate/high Protein!
So you are LCHP for a medical issue? OK, so perhaps I should qualify my previous statement.
Amended: 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 or those with medical issues.0 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »DeficitDuchess wrote: »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.
As mentioned in the link, Carbohydrates're necessary for brain function; as I was told by my Registered Dietitian also & thus if it's necessary for brain function, then there must be a minimum; although the amounts're debatable due to an individual's factors!
Your dietitian has it wrong, I'm afraid. Carbs are not necessary to eat unless your liver is not working (gluconeogenesis). Glucose is needed by the brain (and some other parts) but there is no need to eat carbs to get that glucose... although that is a perfectly fine choice for many people.
This is a brief explanation from a very low carb approach: http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/gluconeogenesis.html
So Harvard & a Registered Dietitian's wrong? What's the scientific origin of this link, it doesn't seem reputable; anyone could've began this website to promote their own bias/agenda!
I second that yes, they are wrong or you misunderstood (more likely, since my endocrinologist is a Harvard educated physician and understands this stuff). Carbs and glucose are not the same thing. It is unequivocally true that you definitely need glucose. It is not true that you need carbohydrates. Though carbs go straight into blood as glucose (absorbed through cheeks and gums first, and then through stomach walls next), protein and fat also can become glucose. The process takes longer, so protein and fat are not instant sources of glucose. It is also true that the same principle applies to both dietary protein and fat and body protein (muscle) and fat. Glycogen stores can also be used to provide glucose, though a person who eats low carb and is fat adapted generally does not have as much glycogen and it isn't needed.
Yes, that is correct - you can actually break down your own fat stores and muscles in order to provide glucose (your primary energy source). So while glucose is necessary, carbohydrates are not the only source of glucose. It looks like you are confusing glucose and carbs.1 -
queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?2 -
stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it. 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 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.
And i know a ton of lchf and keto'ers who supplement with magnesium and potassium due to commonly know deficiencies. The same can go for raw diets with b12.1 -
queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Which is why vegetarians and vegans are just dropping dead all over the place...substantially plant based diets are generally regarded as some of the healthiest in the world.
It's stuff like this that makes me say things like "gospel of keto" and whatnot...it's just not true...it's some kind of fantasy.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
The surveys done of the Blue Zone diets would dispute your hypothesis that low grains and sugars (I'm assuming you don't just mean added sugars here since fruits and vegetables contain sugar) are the key here.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »So will living!
True. No one makes it out alive.
Eating just carbs will make longevity less of a possibility though.
Not what I heard.
centenarianresearch.blogspot.com/2014/04/Okinawan-Centenarian-longevity-Diet-is-98-vegetarian-vegetarian-food-not-paleo-low-carb-or-island-of-pork.html
That's not a "just carbs" diet though. It's a mainly vegetarian diet that still has protein and fats in it, although lower amounts than in North America. I think a sweet potato is close to 10% protein, isn't it?
Plus vegetarian diets can be low carb high fat. It just can't be "zero carb" or below 5g of carbs per day.
... And those Okinawans won't make it out alive either. Longevity though? They're doing something that works. I am sure their diet has something to do with it. My guess is the low sugar and grains helps.
And a diet of "just fat" won't be too healthy either, so I don't get what the point you're trying to make is.
And the Okinawans are btw. pretty low in fat... but of course that can't have anything to do with it can it?
Ask Aaron. He brought up if just carb diets had ever popped up. I said no since it would kill us but the 80s and 90s were the closest we got. And then the Okinawans were brought into it....
I never said a diet of just fat was healthy. No one did.
It is possible that a diet low in fat, sugar and grains is healthy. That is a combination that appears to work. Open your mind. That Diet could work.... It could have something to do with it.
Except low fat never really kicked off, just like low carb is just done by a few people and not the population at large even though it's as much demonized if not more so than fat was.1
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