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
-
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
Nope what? Looking at the numbers provided in there, people started eating more everything. Meats went way up over the whole period, fats went up, even fruits and vegetables.
People started eating more with no indication that the population at large was trying to cut out one thing or another.
If anything, grains and dairy went down for a while until the 70s, then back up from then on.1 -
Wheelhouse15 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.
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.
If thats true it seems nearly any macro percentage can be adapted to by the human body.
1 -
Wheelhouse15 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.
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.
If thats true it seems nearly any macro percentage can be adapted to by the human body.
They can. Just look at all the different kinds of diets in different regions. People live in the coldest and the hottest places, in the high mountains and in the low valleys, at the ocean or completely landlocked etc, all with different kinds of foods available. Only a fool would think that only one kind of diet can be healthy.5 -
stevencloser 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?"
I can't even right now.
Brb, eating 5 grams less carbs and telling myself "I'm trying to eat less carbs".
Heh. I used to listen to/read some paleo and low carb stuff, so I know it's accepted as an item of faith (I believe agreed upon at the Council of Fatcea (the one where they repudiated the starchean heresy) that we all went low fat (or tried) were starving, and so started eating more and more in an effort to get full. That's not consistent with my memory of the relevant period and, even more significantly, makes no darn sense. (Especially in light of diets like the traditional Japanese one, which US nutrition experts would have loved, and which was much closer to the recommendations than anything tried here, and yet apparently people didn't suffer from hunger only less than high calories on that diet.) If you were really hungry and couldn't get full, would you really keep pounding Snackwells or plain pasta (and no one ever ate plain pasta as a normal thing to eat, why the heck would you)? Or would you try to find something filling like maybe some fruits and veg or lean meat or some such? It's not like fat is actually what is filling for the average person (according to studies not anecdotal stuff on MFP) and it's also not like it's the only thing filling for those who find it so.
Oh, and also if we kept eating basically the same amount of fat or cut it 5 grams, how did we experience this terrible resulting hunger?
It depends on people not having the sense to figure "oh, I'm hungry, maybe I should try eating something that makes me fuller" and instead thinking "hmm, maybe another Coke would be a good idea to deal with my growling stomach," which no one has ever done like ever.0 -
Wheelhouse15 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.
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.
It's not a red herring. It's a fact. There are no lists for carbohydrate deficiency but there are many symptoms of protein or fat deficiency. No, we don't need a lot, but we need it. We can survive on very low levels of fat (and protein) but it will negatively affect your health if you don't meet your minimum needs. Low Carbs? Not so much.1 -
I just want to say that I lived for about a year on an almost 0 carb diet (hard keto diet) and I ruined my digestive system by doing so.
I only *kitten* once or twice a week (because what do you know, meat, fat, dairy and minimal green vegetables kill your bowel motility) and it was like rocks. Scarred the inside of my large intestine and eventually ended up with a deep anal fissure too. Now I constantly need medications (a combination of Movicol supplemented with Metamucil sometimes) to poop because my intestines are stretched out and the muscle action doesn't work correctly.
Works like a charm for weight loss though, must've lost about 4KG/8lb that way and managed to keep it off.
not buying it
2 -
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.
You're suggesting that a high carbohydrate diet would lead to an earlier death than a high fat diet...it's ridiculous.
Sure, vegetarians and vegans could be low carb high fat...but please...most aren't...most eat high carbohydrate diets because many vegetarian sources of protein are also high carbohydrate foods.3 -
stevencloser 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?"
I can't even right now.
Brb, eating 5 grams less carbs and telling myself "I'm trying to eat less carbs".
Yah... that's what it often comes down to. People drop one food and call it low carb. Bread or rice or sugar in their coffee.
But yes, if you reduce your carbs, you have cut your carbs. If you have cut carbs while increasing calories overall, your carb macro percentage will have dropped even more, meaning you are eating less of that macro, bite for bite, than you did in the past.0 -
Low Carb ..
Low Fat is what I do ..0 -
Wheelhouse15 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.
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.
It's not a red herring. It's a fact. There are no lists for carbohydrate deficiency but there are many symptoms of protein or fat deficiency. No, we don't need a lot, but we need it. We can survive on very low levels of fat (and protein) but it will negatively affect your health if you don't meet your minimum needs. Low Carbs? Not so much.
Just because it's a fact doesn't make it logical relevant because potato. Show me all the people with fat and protein deficiencies, please, that MUST eat HFLC or have medical issues, and you aren't high protein anyway so what does that have to do with Keto?
I'm not saying we don't need fat and certainly not protein, but you don't justify HFLC by saying carbs aren't necessary so let's make an entire diet out of something that is only marginally more necessary. And, no not attacking keto here, just pointing out that it's not a valid argument to cut carbs just because you can make your glucose from protein if needed.1 -
rinigirl76 wrote: »Low Carb ..
Low Fat is what I do ..
Curious, what are you macro splits?
I think I would insane within a week but that's just me oh and my friend Bobo the sock puppet, say "Hello", Bobo! 0 -
stevencloser 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?"
I can't even right now.
Brb, eating 5 grams less carbs and telling myself "I'm trying to eat less carbs".
Yah... that's what it often comes down to. People drop one food and call it low carb. Bread or rice or sugar in their coffee.
But yes, if you reduce your carbs, you have cut your carbs. If you have cut carbs while increasing calories overall, your carb macro percentage will have dropped even more, meaning you are eating less of that macro, bite for bite, than you did in the past.
Which means you'll lower your carbs and increase your weight.
Yeah, that's not a good strategy but I know that's probably what you meant. 0 -
Wheelhouse15 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.
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.
It's not a red herring. It's a fact. There are no lists for carbohydrate deficiency but there are many symptoms of protein or fat deficiency. No, we don't need a lot, but we need it. We can survive on very low levels of fat (and protein) but it will negatively affect your health if you don't meet your minimum needs. Low Carbs? Not so much.
I've explained this what felt like a million times already. The reason carbs are not essential nutritents is that if they were essential nutrients, you would die within a few days of not eating them, possibly even faster than if you were to die of thirst. They're not essential because they're so important to your body that it doesn't trust you to find it regularly enough, which is reasonable looking at the many times of famine we've been through.
The word essential in common usage and in dietary terms means very different things.4 -
stevencloser 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?"
I can't even right now.
Brb, eating 5 grams less carbs and telling myself "I'm trying to eat less carbs".
Yah... that's what it often comes down to. People drop one food and call it low carb. Bread or rice or sugar in their coffee.
But yes, if you reduce your carbs, you have cut your carbs. If you have cut carbs while increasing calories overall, your carb macro percentage will have dropped even more, meaning you are eating less of that macro, bite for bite, than you did in the past.
I'm not suddenly low carb by eating the same amount of carbs but eating an additional 1000 calories in protein and fat. My percentage of total calories may have decreased but I didn't change anything about my carb intake.
Calling that difference of 5 grams from 100 to 95 over a period of 30 years as trying to go low fat is laughable. That's 1/6 of a gram each year less, that doesn't even register on a food scale.
That's not trying and failing, that is not trying at all and just as likely to have happened due to one of a million different reasons, like for example chicken becoming a more popular meat choice over other meats with slightly higher fat over those decades by a little bit.3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 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.
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.
It's not a red herring. It's a fact. There are no lists for carbohydrate deficiency but there are many symptoms of protein or fat deficiency. No, we don't need a lot, but we need it. We can survive on very low levels of fat (and protein) but it will negatively affect your health if you don't meet your minimum needs. Low Carbs? Not so much.
Just because it's a fact doesn't make it logical relevant because potato. Show me all the people with fat and protein deficiencies, please, that MUST eat HFLC or have medical issues, and you aren't high protein anyway so what does that have to do with Keto?
I'm not saying we don't need fat and certainly not protein, but you don't justify HFLC by saying carbs aren't necessary so let's make an entire diet out of something that is only marginally more necessary. And, no not attacking keto here, just pointing out that it's not a valid argument to cut carbs just because you can make your glucose from protein if needed.
I don't believe I said LCHF should be done because there are no essential carbs. I was saying that it can be safely done, if you wish, because there is no minimum.
As for protein and fat deficiencies, they aren't common in the developed world. The third world though? We've all seen the pictures of kids with the big bloated bellies. They don't NEED HF or HP. People NEED adequate.
For me it;s easy to choose what to eat extra of. Carbs? No, I have insulin resistance. Protein? No, I don't need the inflammation for my autoimmune issues. Fat? For me, extra fat is harmless.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser 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?"
I can't even right now.
Brb, eating 5 grams less carbs and telling myself "I'm trying to eat less carbs".
Yah... that's what it often comes down to. People drop one food and call it low carb. Bread or rice or sugar in their coffee.
But yes, if you reduce your carbs, you have cut your carbs. If you have cut carbs while increasing calories overall, your carb macro percentage will have dropped even more, meaning you are eating less of that macro, bite for bite, than you did in the past.
Which means you'll lower your carbs and increase your weight. Yeah, that's not a good strategy but I know that's probably what you meant.
It's not a good strategy, but that's what people did. They did gain weight.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 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.
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.
It's not a red herring. It's a fact. There are no lists for carbohydrate deficiency but there are many symptoms of protein or fat deficiency. No, we don't need a lot, but we need it. We can survive on very low levels of fat (and protein) but it will negatively affect your health if you don't meet your minimum needs. Low Carbs? Not so much.
Just because it's a fact doesn't make it logical relevant because potato. Show me all the people with fat and protein deficiencies, please, that MUST eat HFLC or have medical issues, and you aren't high protein anyway so what does that have to do with Keto?
I'm not saying we don't need fat and certainly not protein, but you don't justify HFLC by saying carbs aren't necessary so let's make an entire diet out of something that is only marginally more necessary. And, no not attacking keto here, just pointing out that it's not a valid argument to cut carbs just because you can make your glucose from protein if needed.
I don't believe I said LCHF should be done because there are no essential carbs. I was saying that it can be safely done, if you wish, because there is no minimum.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser 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?"
I can't even right now.
Brb, eating 5 grams less carbs and telling myself "I'm trying to eat less carbs".
Yah... that's what it often comes down to. People drop one food and call it low carb. Bread or rice or sugar in their coffee.
But yes, if you reduce your carbs, you have cut your carbs. If you have cut carbs while increasing calories overall, your carb macro percentage will have dropped even more, meaning you are eating less of that macro, bite for bite, than you did in the past.
Which means you'll lower your carbs and increase your weight. Yeah, that's not a good strategy but I know that's probably what you meant.
It's not a good strategy, but that's what people did. They did gain weight.
Snackwells caused people to think that eating high carb but not really reducing fat all that much, thus increasing calories, was a good way to diet and people gained weight. Now we have people thinking that low carb and eating more fat but only bit less carbs, thus increasing calories, is a good way to diet and people gained weight. Bottom line was that people weren't getting the right message about either of these approaches, which was actually eat more low calorically dense foods like vegitables and eat fewwer processed foods.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 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.
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.
It's not a red herring. It's a fact. There are no lists for carbohydrate deficiency but there are many symptoms of protein or fat deficiency. No, we don't need a lot, but we need it. We can survive on very low levels of fat (and protein) but it will negatively affect your health if you don't meet your minimum needs. Low Carbs? Not so much.
I've explained this what felt like a million times already. The reason carbs are not essential nutritents is that if they were essential nutrients, you would die within a few days of not eating them, possibly even faster than if you were to die of thirst. They're not essential because they're so important to your body that it doesn't trust you to find it regularly enough, which is reasonable looking at the many times of famine we've been through.
The word essential in common usage and in dietary terms means very different things.
This doesn't make much sense to me. An essential nutrient is something we must eat to live. That's the definition. We can make our own glucose therefore it is not an essential nutrient.
You're playing with the definition to suit your thinking.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser 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?"
I can't even right now.
Brb, eating 5 grams less carbs and telling myself "I'm trying to eat less carbs".
Yah... that's what it often comes down to. People drop one food and call it low carb. Bread or rice or sugar in their coffee.
But yes, if you reduce your carbs, you have cut your carbs. If you have cut carbs while increasing calories overall, your carb macro percentage will have dropped even more, meaning you are eating less of that macro, bite for bite, than you did in the past.
I'm not suddenly low carb by eating the same amount of carbs but eating an additional 1000 calories in protein and fat. My percentage of total calories may have decreased but I didn't change anything about my carb intake.
Calling that difference of 5 grams from 100 to 95 over a period of 30 years as trying to go low fat is laughable. That's 1/6 of a gram each year less, that doesn't even register on a food scale.
That's not trying and failing, that is not trying at all and just as likely to have happened due to one of a million different reasons, like for example chicken becoming a more popular meat choice over other meats with slightly higher fat over those decades by a little bit.
So it was coincidental that North America's fat intake fell while most of the experts and the government was telling people to cut their fat because it clogged arteries and had too many calories per gram? So it must also be a coincidence that now that the experts admitted that fat is okay, the average fat intake percentage in North America is increasing again? Right.0 -
An essential nutrient is defined as an important nutrient for normal body function that your body can't create themselves.
Glucose being essential would be deadly for humans. It's too important to be an essential nutrient. That's not playing with the definition that is fact.
If you don't get any fat or protein for a week you'll feel bad maybe. If glucose was essential and you didn't get it for a week, you'd be dead.
That's the difference, and pretending that because it's not essential it's a good idea to minimize it lacks any logic.3 -
Or to be more clear, how long does it take you to get into ketosis? That's how long you'd survive without carbs if they were essential.0
-
Or in another other words, it's not that your body can create its own glucose, it has to create its own glucose if it values continued survival when the diet is lacking.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 394 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
- 944 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions