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
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »It seems everything can lead to heart disease and cancer. What else is new?
Totally agree. Any named way of eating can be botched.
While eating carbs is optional eating fats and protein are NOT optional. So a Low Carb Low Fat diet could lead to a health train wreck for example.
Yeah, a low carb, low fat diet is generally a bad idea (assuming you mean very low on both, not just lower than average, which is a 40-30-30, probably), but that has nothing to do with fat being not optional and carbs being optional. It has to do with their being no purpose to high protein beyond a certain point, and carbs/fat being better sources of energy.
Carbs are "optional" since your body makes them whether you eat them or not, because they are so important.
The amount of fat and protein that are needed are far less than what people eat in a normal calorie diet with available food, as in the US. And only certain fats are needed. Therefore, that claim has zero to do with whether one should be high carb, high fat, high protein, whatever.
Again, my personal view is that beyond a few basic things (getting enough protein, which is pretty easy), and eating a varied diet, macros don't matter a whit. Food choice within the macros matters more. Therefore, if you enjoy high fat, eat it, eat an otherwise healthful diet, great. If you like high carb, same thing. If you (like me) like a more moderate across the board diet (40-30-30 or 50-25-25 or 50-30-20 or various similar things), great. I don't normally track macros, but I watch protein a bit (and watch it more closely when doing plant based, when I find it more challenging to get what I think is ideal).0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
I don't agree. I thought low fat diets were embraced. Most people did cut back on fats, and the percentage of their diet that was fat did go down. Fat was evil... remember this?
And then came this:
But we're arguing perception here. To me, fat was bad. Saturated fat was worse than just bad. I learned that cutting fat was good. I guess you saw different things.
There's no need to argue perception.
We have cold hard numbers after all.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
Average fat intake went down from 36 to 33% of total calories over a period of 30 years. If you call that embracing low fat then going from 50% carbs to 45% is "embracing low carb".
Edit: Ah yes, thanks Lemurcat, I totally forgot that total calorie intake of course increased over that period, meaning that total fat intake pretty much stayed the same or even increased in that time.
I guess I should have read all the replies before responding. You quoted the same information as me. Interesting how you interpret a drop in dietary intake as people not trying to lower their dietary intake. I see that differently. They tried, but did not succeed well. Ornish may have told them to try harder.
Ornish, who most Americans have probably not heard of, said go below 10%. The gov't, for a while, said go below 30% and switch out fat for whole grains and vegetables/fruits. Few did that either (and I don't think because it's hard). I discussed in my post why I think the percentage of fat dropped a bit while total consumption of fat did not (the move to a more snack-based less meal-based diet plus sugary drinks).
I think it's absurd to call 40% or 45% carbs (or 50% on a deficit) a low carb diet, and I see no reason to think someone doing those (or a higher carb diet that happens to be nutrient dense) should "try harder." Again, the problem with the SAD is food choice, not macros. And, especially, calories.
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
I don't agree. I thought low fat diets were embraced. Most people did cut back on fats, and the percentage of their diet that was fat did go down. Fat was evil... remember this?
And then came this:
But we're arguing perception here. To me, fat was bad. Saturated fat was worse than just bad. I learned that cutting fat was good. I guess you saw different things.
There's no need to argue perception.
We have cold hard numbers after all.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
Average fat intake went down from 36 to 33% of total calories over a period of 30 years. If you call that embracing low fat then going from 50% carbs to 45% is "embracing low carb".
Edit: Ah yes, thanks Lemurcat, I totally forgot that total calorie intake of course increased over that period, meaning that total fat intake pretty much stayed the same or even increased in that time.
I guess I should have read all the replies before responding. You quoted the same information as me. Interesting how you interpret a drop in dietary intake as people not trying to lower their dietary intake. I see that differently. They tried, but did not succeed well. Ornish may have told them to try harder.
And yes, I have seen trials where they call a 10% drop in carbohydrates a low carb diet. Another failed attempt. Atkins may have told them to try harder. LOL
Energy intake went up. Meaning they didn't eat less fat.
At all.
Ever.
They instead started eating more carbs and protein (which caused the increase in calories), keeping fat about the same.
They started eating more.
If you don't understand here's the math
Men in 1971 ate an average of 2450 calories.
Out of that 42.4% were carbs, that's 1039 calories.
With 36.9% of that being fat, that's 904 calories.
And 16.5% protein, that's 404 calories.
4% are missing from that, so that's probably alcohol.
In 2000 they were eating 2618 calories.
1283 carbs,
859 fat,
406 protein
So, over 30 years, men "reduced" their fat intake by 5 grams.
Are you seriously calling that embracing low fat, seriously?4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
What does vegetarianism have to do with anything here? There are low carb vegetarians. There are keto vegetarians. Vegetarians do not eat just carbs. I don't believe anyone said anything against a plant based diet. I don't see what you are complaining about here...
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder what the anti low carbers, nevermind the anti-keto'ers, are thinking when they complain about that woe.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
I responded to a link that showed Okinawans ate 1% of their diets from sugars and 3% from fruits. Their diet is fairly low in sugar, and definitely low in added sugar and fruit. Their grains are 19%. I wouldn't call either of those high. I would guess that it is lower than what most North Americans eat by quite a bit.
Sure, there are sugars in veggies but not what I would call high. In sweet potatoes, which they seem to eat a LOT of, there is about 4 g of sugar in just over 3 oz. That's higher than I'd want, as someone who has insulin resistance, but it isn't real high. A banana has about 3 times as much sugar.
Your response doesn't address the fact that the Blue Zone people eat grains, which is something you seem to think people shouldn't eat. Additionally, the Blue Zoners average carb intake is 65%. All carbohydrates turn to sugar in the body.
Where does that leave your hypothesis?
Goal posts moved.
No, you moved them. I've been addressing your comment about no grains from the beginning. You keep dodging it.
I moved them? I don't think so. But fine. We'll go down the path of your argument for a bit...Bit off topic though.
So what blue zone eat a high leve of highly refined grains? I think refined, ultraprocessed grains tend to be the problem. I doubt that a bowl of rice or corn on the cob is a health problem for people who are still metabolically healthy. I doubt people develop insulin resistance by eating too may ears of corn or steel cut oats every morning. Refine those grains, add sugars and fats and I think you may have problem causing foods. HFCS? Instant oatmeal with a spoonful of sugar on top? Not as healthy IMO.
So. What blue zone groups eat a lot of refrined grains? And / or sugars?
ETA Which comment about no grains were you refering to? I went back to look and can't see anything where I commented about no grains.
The Sardinians eat a lot of sourdough. That's usually made with refined flour.
As for the no sugar, the Ikarians use a fair amount of honey.
The real common factors in longevity seem to be a mostly plant based diet, a strong sense of community, and an active lifestyle.2 -
Are low-carb diets unhealthy?
Depends on the person. Maybe not for someone very active who needs carbs for energy (then again, there are low-carbers who are active as well, even athletes). And you have to take medical into account as well. Low carb may not be the wisest choice for someone with a gallbladder issue who has to keep their fats low. On the other hand, low carb (specifically keto) would probably be a wise choice for someone with seizures.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »It seems everything can lead to heart disease and cancer. What else is new?
Totally agree. Any named way of eating can be botched.
While eating carbs is optional eating fats and protein are NOT optional. So a Low Carb Low Fat diet could lead to a health train wreck for example.
Eating carbs is optional because your body has a survival response to produce glucose to feed your brain in case of starvation or famine.
I wouldn't call that a reason for eliminating them as a food group.
My body has a flight or fight mechanism for survival too. I don't go around triggering it on purpose on a regular basis.
Thankfully, people who follow a ketogenic plan and are responsible about nutrition do consume some vegetables and ignore this line of thinking.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
I don't agree. I thought low fat diets were embraced. Most people did cut back on fats, and the percentage of their diet that was fat did go down. Fat was evil... remember this?
And then came this:
But we're arguing perception here. To me, fat was bad. Saturated fat was worse than just bad. I learned that cutting fat was good. I guess you saw different things.
There's no need to argue perception.
We have cold hard numbers after all.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
Average fat intake went down from 36 to 33% of total calories over a period of 30 years. If you call that embracing low fat then going from 50% carbs to 45% is "embracing low carb".
Edit: Ah yes, thanks Lemurcat, I totally forgot that total calorie intake of course increased over that period, meaning that total fat intake pretty much stayed the same or even increased in that time.
I guess I should have read all the replies before responding. You quoted the same information as me. Interesting how you interpret a drop in dietary intake as people not trying to lower their dietary intake. I see that differently. They tried, but did not succeed well. Ornish may have told them to try harder.
And yes, I have seen trials where they call a 10% drop in carbohydrates a low carb diet. Another failed attempt. Atkins may have told them to try harder. LOL
Energy intake went up. Meaning they didn't eat less fat.
At all.
Ever.
They instead started eating more carbs and protein (which caused the increase in calories), keeping fat about the same.
They started eating more.
If you don't understand here's the math
Men in 1971 ate an average of 2450 calories.
Out of that 42.4% were carbs, that's 1039 calories.
With 36.9% of that being fat, that's 904 calories.
And 16.5% protein, that's 404 calories.
4% are missing from that, so that's probably alcohol.
In 2000 they were eating 2618 calories.
1283 carbs,
859 fat,
406 protein
So, over 30 years, men "reduced" their fat intake by 5 grams.
Are you seriously calling that embracing low fat, seriously?
Well yes. People tried cutting fat and eating more carbs. Many low carbers find that they eat more when they eat high carb. Perhaps the increase in calories is partially because of the higher carb level.
Or maybe it was just because food was cheaper and easier to get than ever before so people ate more.
I never said people were cutting calories. I said they tried to reduce fat. (I know I did.) They did reduce their macro percentage of fat intake. That's a fact.
Or should I say, " You seriously don't see that? Seriously?"
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
What does vegetarianism have to do with anything here? There are low carb vegetarians. There are keto vegetarians. Vegetarians do not eat just carbs. I don't believe anyone said anything against a plant based diet. I don't see what you are complaining about here...
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder what the anti low carbers, nevermind the anti-keto'ers, are thinking when they complain about that woe.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
I responded to a link that showed Okinawans ate 1% of their diets from sugars and 3% from fruits. Their diet is fairly low in sugar, and definitely low in added sugar and fruit. Their grains are 19%. I wouldn't call either of those high. I would guess that it is lower than what most North Americans eat by quite a bit.
Sure, there are sugars in veggies but not what I would call high. In sweet potatoes, which they seem to eat a LOT of, there is about 4 g of sugar in just over 3 oz. That's higher than I'd want, as someone who has insulin resistance, but it isn't real high. A banana has about 3 times as much sugar.
Your response doesn't address the fact that the Blue Zone people eat grains, which is something you seem to think people shouldn't eat. Additionally, the Blue Zoners average carb intake is 65%. All carbohydrates turn to sugar in the body.
Where does that leave your hypothesis?
Goal posts moved.
No, you moved them. I've been addressing your comment about no grains from the beginning. You keep dodging it.
I moved them? I don't think so. But fine. We'll go down the path of your argument for a bit...Bit off topic though.
So what blue zone eat a high leve of highly refined grains? I think refined, ultraprocessed grains tend to be the problem. I doubt that a bowl of rice or corn on the cob is a health problem for people who are still metabolically healthy. I doubt people develop insulin resistance by eating too may ears of corn or steel cut oats every morning. Refine those grains, add sugars and fats and I think you may have problem causing foods. HFCS? Instant oatmeal with a spoonful of sugar on top? Not as healthy IMO.
So. What blue zone groups eat a lot of refrined grains? And / or sugars?
ETA Which comment about no grains were you refering to? I went back to look and can't see anything where I commented about no grains.
The Sardinians eat a lot of sourdough. That's usually made with refined flour.
As for the no sugar, the Ikarians use a fair amount of honey.
The real common factors in longevity seem to be a mostly plant based diet, a strong sense of community, and an active lifestyle.
I've never read about the blue zones. Is there any reading/links you'd care to share. I'm curious if their sourdough and honey intake is what I would consider to be above low, or even moderate intake levels.
And again, I don't doubt a plant based diet is healthy... Whole foods generally are. It is the metabolically unhealthy who need to avoid some whole foods. Not everyone.
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »It seems everything can lead to heart disease and cancer. What else is new?
Totally agree. Any named way of eating can be botched.
While eating carbs is optional eating fats and protein are NOT optional. So a Low Carb Low Fat diet could lead to a health train wreck for example.
Eating carbs is optional because your body has a survival response to produce glucose to feed your brain in case of starvation or famine.
I wouldn't call that a reason for eliminating them as a food group.
My body has a flight or fight mechanism for survival too. I don't go around triggering it on purpose on a regular basis.
Thankfully, people who follow a ketogenic plan and are responsible about nutrition do consume some vegetables and ignore this line of thinking.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »It seems everything can lead to heart disease and cancer. What else is new?
Totally agree. Any named way of eating can be botched.
While eating carbs is optional eating fats and protein are NOT optional. So a Low Carb Low Fat diet could lead to a health train wreck for example.
Eating carbs is optional because your body has a survival response to produce glucose to feed your brain in case of starvation or famine.
I wouldn't call that a reason for eliminating them as a food group.
My body has a flight or fight mechanism for survival too. I don't go around triggering it on purpose on a regular basis.
Thankfully, people who follow a ketogenic plan and are responsible about nutrition do consume some vegetables and ignore this line of thinking.
You are thankful that people are not carnivores? Why? Based upon what?0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
What does vegetarianism have to do with anything here? There are low carb vegetarians. There are keto vegetarians. Vegetarians do not eat just carbs. I don't believe anyone said anything against a plant based diet. I don't see what you are complaining about here...
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder what the anti low carbers, nevermind the anti-keto'ers, are thinking when they complain about that woe.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
I responded to a link that showed Okinawans ate 1% of their diets from sugars and 3% from fruits. Their diet is fairly low in sugar, and definitely low in added sugar and fruit. Their grains are 19%. I wouldn't call either of those high. I would guess that it is lower than what most North Americans eat by quite a bit.
Sure, there are sugars in veggies but not what I would call high. In sweet potatoes, which they seem to eat a LOT of, there is about 4 g of sugar in just over 3 oz. That's higher than I'd want, as someone who has insulin resistance, but it isn't real high. A banana has about 3 times as much sugar.
Your response doesn't address the fact that the Blue Zone people eat grains, which is something you seem to think people shouldn't eat. Additionally, the Blue Zoners average carb intake is 65%. All carbohydrates turn to sugar in the body.
Where does that leave your hypothesis?
Goal posts moved.
No, you moved them. I've been addressing your comment about no grains from the beginning. You keep dodging it.
I moved them? I don't think so. But fine. We'll go down the path of your argument for a bit...Bit off topic though.
So what blue zone eat a high leve of highly refined grains? I think refined, ultraprocessed grains tend to be the problem. I doubt that a bowl of rice or corn on the cob is a health problem for people who are still metabolically healthy. I doubt people develop insulin resistance by eating too may ears of corn or steel cut oats every morning. Refine those grains, add sugars and fats and I think you may have problem causing foods. HFCS? Instant oatmeal with a spoonful of sugar on top? Not as healthy IMO.
So. What blue zone groups eat a lot of refrined grains? And / or sugars?
ETA Which comment about no grains were you refering to? I went back to look and can't see anything where I commented about no grains.
The Sardinians eat a lot of sourdough. That's usually made with refined flour.
As for the no sugar, the Ikarians use a fair amount of honey.
The real common factors in longevity seem to be a mostly plant based diet, a strong sense of community, and an active lifestyle.
I've never read about the blue zones. Is there any reading/links you'd care to share. I'm curious if their sourdough and honey intake is what I would consider to be above low, or even moderate intake levels.
And again, I don't doubt a plant based diet is healthy... Whole foods generally are. It is the metabolically unhealthy who need to avoid some whole foods. Not everyone.
The in depth information is all in the book, unfortunately.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »It seems everything can lead to heart disease and cancer. What else is new?
Totally agree. Any named way of eating can be botched.
While eating carbs is optional eating fats and protein are NOT optional. So a Low Carb Low Fat diet could lead to a health train wreck for example.
Eating carbs is optional because your body has a survival response to produce glucose to feed your brain in case of starvation or famine.
I wouldn't call that a reason for eliminating them as a food group.
My body has a flight or fight mechanism for survival too. I don't go around triggering it on purpose on a regular basis.
Thankfully, people who follow a ketogenic plan and are responsible about nutrition do consume some vegetables and ignore this line of thinking.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »It seems everything can lead to heart disease and cancer. What else is new?
Totally agree. Any named way of eating can be botched.
While eating carbs is optional eating fats and protein are NOT optional. So a Low Carb Low Fat diet could lead to a health train wreck for example.
Eating carbs is optional because your body has a survival response to produce glucose to feed your brain in case of starvation or famine.
I wouldn't call that a reason for eliminating them as a food group.
My body has a flight or fight mechanism for survival too. I don't go around triggering it on purpose on a regular basis.
Thankfully, people who follow a ketogenic plan and are responsible about nutrition do consume some vegetables and ignore this line of thinking.
You are thankful that people are not carnivores? Why? Based upon what?
I leave the full argument about vegetable consumption between you and lemurcat. I have no interest in being drawn into it.
Suffice it to say, it's pretty disingenuous to take the stance that one could theoretically be a carnivore and meet all their micronutrient needs when there are many, many keto adherents who never touch offal. (I've been around longer than my post count would indicate, and have seen user diaries, yours included.) Or at least don't consume it on a regular enough basis to get the vitamins they need.
However, I'm fine to agree to disagree on this issue.
The point I am making is more general and is just that I don't believe that relying on a survival mechanism is optimal for day to day existence.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
I don't agree. I thought low fat diets were embraced. Most people did cut back on fats, and the percentage of their diet that was fat did go down. Fat was evil... remember this?
And then came this:
But we're arguing perception here. To me, fat was bad. Saturated fat was worse than just bad. I learned that cutting fat was good. I guess you saw different things.
There's no need to argue perception.
We have cold hard numbers after all.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
Average fat intake went down from 36 to 33% of total calories over a period of 30 years. If you call that embracing low fat then going from 50% carbs to 45% is "embracing low carb".
Edit: Ah yes, thanks Lemurcat, I totally forgot that total calorie intake of course increased over that period, meaning that total fat intake pretty much stayed the same or even increased in that time.
I guess I should have read all the replies before responding. You quoted the same information as me. Interesting how you interpret a drop in dietary intake as people not trying to lower their dietary intake. I see that differently. They tried, but did not succeed well. Ornish may have told them to try harder.
And yes, I have seen trials where they call a 10% drop in carbohydrates a low carb diet. Another failed attempt. Atkins may have told them to try harder. LOL
Energy intake went up. Meaning they didn't eat less fat.
At all.
Ever.
They instead started eating more carbs and protein (which caused the increase in calories), keeping fat about the same.
They started eating more.
If you don't understand here's the math
Men in 1971 ate an average of 2450 calories.
Out of that 42.4% were carbs, that's 1039 calories.
With 36.9% of that being fat, that's 904 calories.
And 16.5% protein, that's 404 calories.
4% are missing from that, so that's probably alcohol.
In 2000 they were eating 2618 calories.
1283 carbs,
859 fat,
406 protein
So, over 30 years, men "reduced" their fat intake by 5 grams.
Are you seriously calling that embracing low fat, seriously?
Well yes. People tried cutting fat and eating more carbs. Many low carbers find that they eat more when they eat high carb. Perhaps the increase in calories is partially because of the higher carb level.
Or maybe it was just because food was cheaper and easier to get than ever before so people ate more.
I never said people were cutting calories. I said they tried to reduce fat. (I know I did.) They did reduce their macro percentage of fat intake. That's a fact.
Or should I say, " You seriously don't see that? Seriously?"
No, you're misinterpreting the data. It's more like the people kept eating the way they were and also started eating Snackwells on top of what they were already eating.
If you notice the numbers, the protein and fat are pretty constant. The carbs went up because people bought into the notion "if it's low fat, I can eat it" and just added all that junky crap low-fat snack food on top of what they were already eating.
It's not that everyone tried to cut fat and failed. How can you fail to cut fat that badly?1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
What does vegetarianism have to do with anything here? There are low carb vegetarians. There are keto vegetarians. Vegetarians do not eat just carbs. I don't believe anyone said anything against a plant based diet. I don't see what you are complaining about here...
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder what the anti low carbers, nevermind the anti-keto'ers, are thinking when they complain about that woe.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
I responded to a link that showed Okinawans ate 1% of their diets from sugars and 3% from fruits. Their diet is fairly low in sugar, and definitely low in added sugar and fruit. Their grains are 19%. I wouldn't call either of those high. I would guess that it is lower than what most North Americans eat by quite a bit.
Sure, there are sugars in veggies but not what I would call high. In sweet potatoes, which they seem to eat a LOT of, there is about 4 g of sugar in just over 3 oz. That's higher than I'd want, as someone who has insulin resistance, but it isn't real high. A banana has about 3 times as much sugar.
Your response doesn't address the fact that the Blue Zone people eat grains, which is something you seem to think people shouldn't eat. Additionally, the Blue Zoners average carb intake is 65%. All carbohydrates turn to sugar in the body.
Where does that leave your hypothesis?
Goal posts moved.
No, you moved them. I've been addressing your comment about no grains from the beginning. You keep dodging it.
I moved them? I don't think so. But fine. We'll go down the path of your argument for a bit...Bit off topic though.
So what blue zone eat a high leve of highly refined grains? I think refined, ultraprocessed grains tend to be the problem. I doubt that a bowl of rice or corn on the cob is a health problem for people who are still metabolically healthy. I doubt people develop insulin resistance by eating too may ears of corn or steel cut oats every morning. Refine those grains, add sugars and fats and I think you may have problem causing foods. HFCS? Instant oatmeal with a spoonful of sugar on top? Not as healthy IMO.
So. What blue zone groups eat a lot of refrined grains? And / or sugars?
ETA Which comment about no grains were you refering to? I went back to look and can't see anything where I commented about no grains.
The Sardinians eat a lot of sourdough. That's usually made with refined flour.
As for the no sugar, the Ikarians use a fair amount of honey.
The real common factors in longevity seem to be a mostly plant based diet, a strong sense of community, and an active lifestyle.
I've never read about the blue zones. Is there any reading/links you'd care to share. I'm curious if their sourdough and honey intake is what I would consider to be above low, or even moderate intake levels.
And again, I don't doubt a plant based diet is healthy... Whole foods generally are. It is the metabolically unhealthy who need to avoid some whole foods. Not everyone.
The in depth information is all in the book, unfortunately.
The book...It's called Blue Zone? I'll look into it.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »It seems everything can lead to heart disease and cancer. What else is new?
Totally agree. Any named way of eating can be botched.
While eating carbs is optional eating fats and protein are NOT optional. So a Low Carb Low Fat diet could lead to a health train wreck for example.
Eating carbs is optional because your body has a survival response to produce glucose to feed your brain in case of starvation or famine.
I wouldn't call that a reason for eliminating them as a food group.
My body has a flight or fight mechanism for survival too. I don't go around triggering it on purpose on a regular basis.
Thankfully, people who follow a ketogenic plan and are responsible about nutrition do consume some vegetables and ignore this line of thinking.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »It seems everything can lead to heart disease and cancer. What else is new?
Totally agree. Any named way of eating can be botched.
While eating carbs is optional eating fats and protein are NOT optional. So a Low Carb Low Fat diet could lead to a health train wreck for example.
Eating carbs is optional because your body has a survival response to produce glucose to feed your brain in case of starvation or famine.
I wouldn't call that a reason for eliminating them as a food group.
My body has a flight or fight mechanism for survival too. I don't go around triggering it on purpose on a regular basis.
Thankfully, people who follow a ketogenic plan and are responsible about nutrition do consume some vegetables and ignore this line of thinking.
You are thankful that people are not carnivores? Why? Based upon what?
I leave the full argument about vegetable consumption between you and lemurcat. I have no interest in being drawn into it.
Suffice it to say, it's pretty disingenuous to take the stance that one could theoretically be a carnivore and meet all their micronutrient needs when there are many, many keto adherents who never touch offal. (I've been around longer than my post count would indicate, and have seen user diaries, yours included.) Or at least don't consume it on a regular enough basis to get the vitamins they need.
However, I'm fine to agree to disagree on this issue.
The point I am making is more general and is just that I don't believe that relying on a survival mechanism is optimal for day to day existence.
But how do you know they don't get the vitamins they need? I know of a few carnivores too, and they are quite healthy. They've even shared lab results to show it.
I just don't think that the fact that one includes plant matter of some sort in their diet will ensure that they meet all of their nutritional needs. I've known some very unhealthy vegetarians. I haven't yet met an unhealthy overweight carnivore, although I don't know very many who choose to eat just animal products.... My point is that just because one eats a certain woe does not automatically include or eclude that person from good health through diet. KWIM?
A carnivore living on quality meats, eggs, and maybe even dairy has a different nutritional profile than someone who lives off of bacon and other processed meats. Anyways. Moving on.
I'd like to comment on your survival mechanism comment. Among low carbers and keto'ers, we take a different perspective. Low carb is more natural since we are healthier doing it. Our bodies and brains work more effectively with ketones. Higher carb levels are seen as the unnatural state, and as such the body goes into a flurry of a response in order to clear out the glucose and keep blood glucose below toxic high levels. Different perspective.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
I don't agree. I thought low fat diets were embraced. Most people did cut back on fats, and the percentage of their diet that was fat did go down. Fat was evil... remember this?
And then came this:
But we're arguing perception here. To me, fat was bad. Saturated fat was worse than just bad. I learned that cutting fat was good. I guess you saw different things.
There's no need to argue perception.
We have cold hard numbers after all.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
Average fat intake went down from 36 to 33% of total calories over a period of 30 years. If you call that embracing low fat then going from 50% carbs to 45% is "embracing low carb".
Edit: Ah yes, thanks Lemurcat, I totally forgot that total calorie intake of course increased over that period, meaning that total fat intake pretty much stayed the same or even increased in that time.
I guess I should have read all the replies before responding. You quoted the same information as me. Interesting how you interpret a drop in dietary intake as people not trying to lower their dietary intake. I see that differently. They tried, but did not succeed well. Ornish may have told them to try harder.
And yes, I have seen trials where they call a 10% drop in carbohydrates a low carb diet. Another failed attempt. Atkins may have told them to try harder. LOL
Energy intake went up. Meaning they didn't eat less fat.
At all.
Ever.
They instead started eating more carbs and protein (which caused the increase in calories), keeping fat about the same.
They started eating more.
If you don't understand here's the math
Men in 1971 ate an average of 2450 calories.
Out of that 42.4% were carbs, that's 1039 calories.
With 36.9% of that being fat, that's 904 calories.
And 16.5% protein, that's 404 calories.
4% are missing from that, so that's probably alcohol.
In 2000 they were eating 2618 calories.
1283 carbs,
859 fat,
406 protein
So, over 30 years, men "reduced" their fat intake by 5 grams.
Are you seriously calling that embracing low fat, seriously?
Well yes. People tried cutting fat and eating more carbs. Many low carbers find that they eat more when they eat high carb. Perhaps the increase in calories is partially because of the higher carb level.
Or maybe it was just because food was cheaper and easier to get than ever before so people ate more.
I never said people were cutting calories. I said they tried to reduce fat. (I know I did.) They did reduce their macro percentage of fat intake. That's a fact.
Or should I say, " You seriously don't see that? Seriously?"
No, you're misinterpreting the data. It's more like the people kept eating the way they were and also started eating Snackwells on top of what they were already eating.
If you notice the numbers, the protein and fat are pretty constant. The carbs went up because people bought into the notion "if it's low fat, I can eat it" and just added all that junky crap low-fat snack food on top of what they were already eating.
It's not that everyone tried to cut fat and failed. How can you fail to cut fat that badly?
As I said before, hunger.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
I don't agree. I thought low fat diets were embraced. Most people did cut back on fats, and the percentage of their diet that was fat did go down. Fat was evil... remember this?
And then came this:
But we're arguing perception here. To me, fat was bad. Saturated fat was worse than just bad. I learned that cutting fat was good. I guess you saw different things.
There's no need to argue perception.
We have cold hard numbers after all.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
Average fat intake went down from 36 to 33% of total calories over a period of 30 years. If you call that embracing low fat then going from 50% carbs to 45% is "embracing low carb".
Edit: Ah yes, thanks Lemurcat, I totally forgot that total calorie intake of course increased over that period, meaning that total fat intake pretty much stayed the same or even increased in that time.
I guess I should have read all the replies before responding. You quoted the same information as me. Interesting how you interpret a drop in dietary intake as people not trying to lower their dietary intake. I see that differently. They tried, but did not succeed well. Ornish may have told them to try harder.
And yes, I have seen trials where they call a 10% drop in carbohydrates a low carb diet. Another failed attempt. Atkins may have told them to try harder. LOL
Energy intake went up. Meaning they didn't eat less fat.
At all.
Ever.
They instead started eating more carbs and protein (which caused the increase in calories), keeping fat about the same.
They started eating more.
If you don't understand here's the math
Men in 1971 ate an average of 2450 calories.
Out of that 42.4% were carbs, that's 1039 calories.
With 36.9% of that being fat, that's 904 calories.
And 16.5% protein, that's 404 calories.
4% are missing from that, so that's probably alcohol.
In 2000 they were eating 2618 calories.
1283 carbs,
859 fat,
406 protein
So, over 30 years, men "reduced" their fat intake by 5 grams.
Are you seriously calling that embracing low fat, seriously?
Well yes. People tried cutting fat and eating more carbs. Many low carbers find that they eat more when they eat high carb. Perhaps the increase in calories is partially because of the higher carb level.
Or maybe it was just because food was cheaper and easier to get than ever before so people ate more.
I never said people were cutting calories. I said they tried to reduce fat. (I know I did.) They did reduce their macro percentage of fat intake. That's a fact.
Or should I say, " You seriously don't see that? Seriously?"
No, you're misinterpreting the data. It's more like the people kept eating the way they were and also started eating Snackwells on top of what they were already eating.
If you notice the numbers, the protein and fat are pretty constant. The carbs went up because people bought into the notion "if it's low fat, I can eat it" and just added all that junky crap low-fat snack food on top of what they were already eating.
It's not that everyone tried to cut fat and failed. How can you fail to cut fat that badly?
nope:
http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf0 -
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.
The "no essential carbs" is a red herring since an adult male only needs 20g of EFA a day and an adult females about 15g/day and even if you don't get enough (which is amounts far below the RDA) the deficiencies are not horrible (mostly dry skin issues). You can create fat out of protein or carbs as required as well which is why there are a lot of people that eat very low fat for years and have no issues.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »It seems everything can lead to heart disease and cancer. What else is new?
Totally agree. Any named way of eating can be botched.
While eating carbs is optional eating fats and protein are NOT optional. So a Low Carb Low Fat diet could lead to a health train wreck for example.
Assuming a moderately active 150lb man needs 2400KCal/day diet: 20g of fat = 180KCal/day, about 75g of protein = 300KCal/day or about 20% of your diet would be for essential macros and 80% is variable for energy use.
However, I have to agree that LCLF is insane. Not sure if anyone could ever stomach a LCLF diet even if you could do that since most natural foods that are high in protein also have a fair amount of fat and/or carbs attached to them.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
I don't agree. I thought low fat diets were embraced. Most people did cut back on fats, and the percentage of their diet that was fat did go down. Fat was evil... remember this?
And then came this:
But we're arguing perception here. To me, fat was bad. Saturated fat was worse than just bad. I learned that cutting fat was good. I guess you saw different things.
There's no need to argue perception.
We have cold hard numbers after all.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
Average fat intake went down from 36 to 33% of total calories over a period of 30 years. If you call that embracing low fat then going from 50% carbs to 45% is "embracing low carb".
Edit: Ah yes, thanks Lemurcat, I totally forgot that total calorie intake of course increased over that period, meaning that total fat intake pretty much stayed the same or even increased in that time.
I guess I should have read all the replies before responding. You quoted the same information as me. Interesting how you interpret a drop in dietary intake as people not trying to lower their dietary intake. I see that differently. They tried, but did not succeed well. Ornish may have told them to try harder.
And yes, I have seen trials where they call a 10% drop in carbohydrates a low carb diet. Another failed attempt. Atkins may have told them to try harder. LOL
Energy intake went up. Meaning they didn't eat less fat.
At all.
Ever.
They instead started eating more carbs and protein (which caused the increase in calories), keeping fat about the same.
They started eating more.
If you don't understand here's the math
Men in 1971 ate an average of 2450 calories.
Out of that 42.4% were carbs, that's 1039 calories.
With 36.9% of that being fat, that's 904 calories.
And 16.5% protein, that's 404 calories.
4% are missing from that, so that's probably alcohol.
In 2000 they were eating 2618 calories.
1283 carbs,
859 fat,
406 protein
So, over 30 years, men "reduced" their fat intake by 5 grams.
Are you seriously calling that embracing low fat, seriously?
Well yes. People tried cutting fat and eating more carbs. Many low carbers find that they eat more when they eat high carb. Perhaps the increase in calories is partially because of the higher carb level.
Or maybe it was just because food was cheaper and easier to get than ever before so people ate more.
I never said people were cutting calories. I said they tried to reduce fat. (I know I did.) They did reduce their macro percentage of fat intake. That's a fact.
Or should I say, " You seriously don't see that? Seriously?"
No, you're misinterpreting the data. It's more like the people kept eating the way they were and also started eating Snackwells on top of what they were already eating.
If you notice the numbers, the protein and fat are pretty constant. The carbs went up because people bought into the notion "if it's low fat, I can eat it" and just added all that junky crap low-fat snack food on top of what they were already eating.
It's not that everyone tried to cut fat and failed. How can you fail to cut fat that badly?
nope:
http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
Way out of date.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
I don't agree. I thought low fat diets were embraced. Most people did cut back on fats, and the percentage of their diet that was fat did go down. Fat was evil... remember this?
And then came this:
But we're arguing perception here. To me, fat was bad. Saturated fat was worse than just bad. I learned that cutting fat was good. I guess you saw different things.
There's no need to argue perception.
We have cold hard numbers after all.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
Average fat intake went down from 36 to 33% of total calories over a period of 30 years. If you call that embracing low fat then going from 50% carbs to 45% is "embracing low carb".
Edit: Ah yes, thanks Lemurcat, I totally forgot that total calorie intake of course increased over that period, meaning that total fat intake pretty much stayed the same or even increased in that time.
I guess I should have read all the replies before responding. You quoted the same information as me. Interesting how you interpret a drop in dietary intake as people not trying to lower their dietary intake. I see that differently. They tried, but did not succeed well. Ornish may have told them to try harder.
And yes, I have seen trials where they call a 10% drop in carbohydrates a low carb diet. Another failed attempt. Atkins may have told them to try harder. LOL
Energy intake went up. Meaning they didn't eat less fat.
At all.
Ever.
They instead started eating more carbs and protein (which caused the increase in calories), keeping fat about the same.
They started eating more.
If you don't understand here's the math
Men in 1971 ate an average of 2450 calories.
Out of that 42.4% were carbs, that's 1039 calories.
With 36.9% of that being fat, that's 904 calories.
And 16.5% protein, that's 404 calories.
4% are missing from that, so that's probably alcohol.
In 2000 they were eating 2618 calories.
1283 carbs,
859 fat,
406 protein
So, over 30 years, men "reduced" their fat intake by 5 grams.
Are you seriously calling that embracing low fat, seriously?
Well yes. People tried cutting fat and eating more carbs. Many low carbers find that they eat more when they eat high carb. Perhaps the increase in calories is partially because of the higher carb level.
Or maybe it was just because food was cheaper and easier to get than ever before so people ate more.
I never said people were cutting calories. I said they tried to reduce fat. (I know I did.) They did reduce their macro percentage of fat intake. That's a fact.
Or should I say, " You seriously don't see that? Seriously?"
I can't even right now.
Brb, eating 5 grams less carbs and telling myself "I'm trying to eat less carbs".2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions