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
-
And the only reason your liver even produces ketone bodies in high amounts is because it uses all the oxaloacetate for gluconeogenesis and can't put fat through the regular breakdown process.1
-
stevencloser wrote: »And the only reason your liver even produces ketone bodies in high amounts is because it uses all the oxaloacetate for gluconeogenesis and can't put fat through the regular breakdown process.
Or you are under 50 grams of carbs and 100 grams of protein daily.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
You misunderstand what he is saying.
Glucose is so vital to biological function that the body will manufacture it.
That's why we don't need to ingest it.
THAT is what he's saying.
Which is the same thing as, "If you don't eat carbs, your body will make glucose. So you don't need to eat carbs" The only difference is the negative opinion of this process that is inserted into the explanation. Other than that, literally everyone is saying the same thing.1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
The question is what that means.
As stevencloser pointed out, in this case it means that glucose is so important to the body that it can't leave it to diet alone, but must have a backup system. (Or, to put it more correctly, although still inexpertly, it was so important that there was such a disadvantage to not having the backup that we evolved to have it.)
ketomom, on the other hand, keeps trying to twist it so that it means that consuming glucose is somehow something that should be minimized, and that glucose is generally bad for us.
That is not what essential nutrient means and makes no sense.
The argument that because glucose is not an essential nutrient we should be on LCHF diets is absurd, since no one recommends a no fat or no protein diet and the amount of fat and protein that is actually needed from the diet is easy to get in pretty much any macro split anyone will consume, at least in a society with enough food, which is what we are talking about.
In a society with a famine or food shortage, of course one can die from malnutrition due to a lack of fat or protein sources, but -- again, as stevencloser pointed out -- it takes far longer than it would if our bodies could not make glucose as a backup. That glucose is so important to our bodies is NOT a good argument for the claim that carbs are unimportant or "toxic" or that keto is a more natural state or all the rest of the LCHF dogma.
I'm twisting it? LOL No. I don't think so. There is only one definition of an essential nutrient. I'm using that term correctly. Something the body needs that you must consume to get.
The body needs glucose. Between 40-150g per day.... I think I said this already. Anyways. We make glucose. We don't need to eat it. Done.
We need oxygen. Does that mean we should seek out atmospheres of 40-60% oxygen instead of our lower oxygen atmosphere (what is it? 21%?). More isn't needed.
More glucose (from the diet) is also not needed. That is my point. You could use more glucose and eat more, but you don't need to.
And I never said because glucose is non-essential that we should all be LCHF. Nor did I EVER say "toxic". I don't think I am the one twisting anything here.
I said that we would die without our minimum glucose. It's true. Glucose is important. So is a large number of other chemicals in the body. But unless you are living without a functioning liver it really is a non issue. We make glucose. No one is going to die from lack of glucose. Even if you never eat a carby food.
I am just reiterating (over and over) that LCHF is safe and one of the reasons is because there is no minimum carb requirement. This thread is about LCHF safety, right? Well, low carbers don't need to worry about going too low and depriving their bodies of an essential nutrient because carbs are not essential. The body is designed to meet our glucose (because it is another important thing the body uses).
Question for you then, If you need 40-150g of glucose per day and you aren't eating high protein either, then were are you getting your glucose from? You can't make it from fat so are you pulling out of your skeletal muscles?
And yes, this is an honest question because I'm not sure where you are getting enough protein or carbs from if you are trying to eat say below 20g or carbs and below 50 or 60g or protein. Are my number unrealistic?
Here's a pretty good discussion on it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373635/0 -
Many low-carb diets require that you only consume 15 to 20per cent of your total calories from carbs, which often eliminates nutritionally rich plant-based and complex carbohydrate foods that prevent diseases and promote health.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2569612/Are-low-carb-diets-BAD-Nutrition-expert-claims-giving-grains-lead-heart-disease-cancer.html#ixzz4O7y88qxR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
From the article... And apparently from someone that has never done a low carb diet "properly"
I eat TONS of vegetables. I also eat nuts, berries, peaches, apples sweet potatos legumes. *Lean*Beef, Fish, chicken, turkey.
What I don't eat or need Bread, Pasta, rice, russet potato. Candy. Sugar and Starch.
This article and many like it mistakenly assume that low-carbers aren't eating any vegetables or fruit. That's not the truth. Did you know ONE strawberry has like 5 calories. It's also an excellent source of vitamin C.
Starchy vegetables and bread products have a TON of calories by comparison to their *natural* counterparts and FAR FAR FAR FAR fewer micro nutrients.
So I get my calories from meat, vegetables, GOOD fats, and fruit. Just not overly processed foods down the grocery story aisles. My cholesterol is WAY DOWN because of it too.
So no "low carb" diets are not bad. Because for it to be high carb you need food that won't provide you essential micros. Low carb actually lays out rules that encourages you to eat large amounts of HEALTHY veggetables. Where else are you going to get your carbs if you don't get them from calorie laden breads, pastas, and rice?
Now *No Carb* diets are horrible for your kidneys and brain. Your brain needs glucose to operate and you can get that from your Vegetables, Beans, and Fruit.
Does it mean that you should eat a diet full of sausage and processed meat? No gawd no. And most people on these diets know that. Check out Paleo or Primal diets. Pre-packaged saturated fat ladened meat is not on the diet.0 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »Many low-carb diets require that you only consume 15 to 20per cent of your total calories from carbs, which often eliminates nutritionally rich plant-based and complex carbohydrate foods that prevent diseases and promote health.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2569612/Are-low-carb-diets-BAD-Nutrition-expert-claims-giving-grains-lead-heart-disease-cancer.html#ixzz4O7y88qxR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
From the article... And apparently from someone that has never done a low carb diet "properly"
I eat TONS of vegetables. I also eat nuts, berries, peaches, apples sweet potatos legumes. *Lean*Beef, Fish, chicken, turkey.
What I don't eat or need Bread, Pasta, rice, russet potato. Candy. Sugar and Starch.
This article and many like it mistakenly assume that low-carbers aren't eating any vegetables or fruit. That's not the truth. Did you know ONE strawberry has like 5 calories. It's also an excellent source of vitamin C.
Starchy vegetables and bread products have a TON of calories by comparison to their *natural* counterparts and FAR FAR FAR FAR fewer micro nutrients.
So I get my calories from meat, vegetables, GOOD fats, and fruit. Just not overly processed foods down the grocery story aisles. My cholesterol is WAY DOWN because of it too.
So no "low carb" diets are not bad. Because for it to be high carb you need food that won't provide you essential micros. Low carb actually lays out rules that encourages you to eat large amounts of HEALTHY veggetables. Where else are you going to get your carbs if you don't get them from calorie laden breads, pastas, and rice?
Now *No Carb* diets are horrible for your kidneys and brain. Your brain needs glucose to operate and you can get that from your Vegetables, Beans, and Fruit.
Does it mean that you should eat a diet full of sausage and processed meat? No gawd no. And most people on these diets know that. Check out Paleo or Primal diets. Pre-packaged saturated fat ladened meat is not on the diet.
Ironically, many keto folks here preach that vegetables aren't necessary and are overrated...
As to the bolded...starchy vegetables are natural...and a potato really isn't terribly calorie dense...and are quite nutritious actually...
...To eat higher carb doesn't require eating a bunch of overly processed foods that don't provide essential nutrients...please...srsly...by this logic most vegetarians and vegans and people who otherwise eat a substantively plant based diet would be stuffing their faces with crap all day...what about whole oats, legumes, lentils...and yeah, whole food starches like potatoes and sweet potatoes are great and nutritionally rich.
4 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »Where else are you going to get your carbs if you don't get them from calorie laden breads, pastas, and rice?
Off the top of my head: sweet potatoes, butternut squash, beans, whole grains, bananas, or pineapple?
You seem to be saying that a high carbohydrate diet, in and of itself, is somehow going to be nutrient-deficient. This is as ridiculous as saying that a low carbohydrate diet, in and of itself is nutrient-deficient. There are lots of ways to eat higher in carbohydrates and still meet all your macro- and micro-nutrient goals. I eat a diet that is very high in carbohydrates. I don't regularly eat bread, pasta, or rice (although I do have them when I want them). There is nothing wrong with starchy vegetables or grains (although, like many calorie-dense foods, you do want to make sure you're keeping track of how much you're eating if your weight is a concern).2 -
sorry for board hogging but this is from wikipediaThe China Study examines the relationship between the consumption of animal products (including dairy) and chronic illnesses such as coronary heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and bowel cancer.[3] The authors conclude that people who eat a whole-food, plant-based vegan diet—avoiding all animal products, including beef, pork, poultry, fish, eggs, cheese, and milk, and reducing their intake of processed foods and refined carbohydrates—will escape, reduce, or reverse the development of numerous diseases. They write that "eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy".[4]
But I would like to point out that the low carb diets also reduce their intake of processed and refined carbohydrates. Common denominator?
Also I want to point out that several doctors have been trying to get the WHO to encourage governments to effectively tax or raise the cost of red meat. Humans have been safely eating red meat for thousands of years. Should it be eaten every day? No. Especially in our society. However it is a great source of extremely bio-available iron and other micros that we need.
Does low carb or vegan work for everyone? No, But I would be willing to bet a look at your ancestry would probably help determine which type of diet works best for you.
ie Native American and Aboriginal - Paleo/Primal
Scandanavian Fish and Grains.
I'm waiting for THAT study to come out.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
The question is what that means.
As stevencloser pointed out, in this case it means that glucose is so important to the body that it can't leave it to diet alone, but must have a backup system. (Or, to put it more correctly, although still inexpertly, it was so important that there was such a disadvantage to not having the backup that we evolved to have it.)
ketomom, on the other hand, keeps trying to twist it so that it means that consuming glucose is somehow something that should be minimized, and that glucose is generally bad for us.
That is not what essential nutrient means and makes no sense.
The argument that because glucose is not an essential nutrient we should be on LCHF diets is absurd, since no one recommends a no fat or no protein diet and the amount of fat and protein that is actually needed from the diet is easy to get in pretty much any macro split anyone will consume, at least in a society with enough food, which is what we are talking about.
In a society with a famine or food shortage, of course one can die from malnutrition due to a lack of fat or protein sources, but -- again, as stevencloser pointed out -- it takes far longer than it would if our bodies could not make glucose as a backup. That glucose is so important to our bodies is NOT a good argument for the claim that carbs are unimportant or "toxic" or that keto is a more natural state or all the rest of the LCHF dogma.
I'm twisting it? LOL No. I don't think so. There is only one definition of an essential nutrient. I'm using that term correctly. Something the body needs that you must consume to get.
The body needs glucose. Between 40-150g per day.... I think I said this already. Anyways. We make glucose. We don't need to eat it. Done.
We need oxygen. Does that mean we should seek out atmospheres of 40-60% oxygen instead of our lower oxygen atmosphere (what is it? 21%?). More isn't needed.
More glucose (from the diet) is also not needed. That is my point. You could use more glucose and eat more, but you don't need to.
And I never said because glucose is non-essential that we should all be LCHF. Nor did I EVER say "toxic". I don't think I am the one twisting anything here.
I said that we would die without our minimum glucose. It's true. Glucose is important. So is a large number of other chemicals in the body. But unless you are living without a functioning liver it really is a non issue. We make glucose. No one is going to die from lack of glucose. Even if you never eat a carby food.
I am just reiterating (over and over) that LCHF is safe and one of the reasons is because there is no minimum carb requirement. This thread is about LCHF safety, right? Well, low carbers don't need to worry about going too low and depriving their bodies of an essential nutrient because carbs are not essential. The body is designed to meet our glucose (because it is another important thing the body uses).
Question for you then, If you need 40-150g of glucose per day and you aren't eating high protein either, then were are you getting your glucose from? You can't make it from fat so are you pulling out of your skeletal muscles?
And yes, this is an honest question because I'm not sure where you are getting enough protein or carbs from if you are trying to eat say below 20g or carbs and below 50 or 60g or protein. Are my number unrealistic?
First, the answer is yes... dietary protein or body protein (muscles).
Second, it is possible to make glucose from fat. I would suggest that the idea that it isn't possible must come from someone not up to date on the latest science; but with 40 years of progressive research on the topic, "latest" doesn't seem to be the right word.0 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »sorry for board hogging but this is from wikipediaThe China Study examines the relationship between the consumption of animal products (including dairy) and chronic illnesses such as coronary heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and bowel cancer.[3] The authors conclude that people who eat a whole-food, plant-based vegan diet—avoiding all animal products, including beef, pork, poultry, fish, eggs, cheese, and milk, and reducing their intake of processed foods and refined carbohydrates—will escape, reduce, or reverse the development of numerous diseases. They write that "eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy".[4]
But I would like to point out that the low carb diets also reduce their intake of processed and refined carbohydrates. Common denominator?
Also I want to point out that several doctors have been trying to get the WHO to encourage governments to effectively tax or raise the cost of red meat. Humans have been safely eating red meat for thousands of years. Should it be eaten every day? No. Especially in our society. However it is a great source of extremely bio-available iron and other micros that we need.
Does low carb or vegan work for everyone? No, But I would be willing to bet a look at your ancestry would probably help determine which type of diet works best for you.
ie Native American and Aboriginal - Paleo/Primal
Scandanavian Fish and Grains.
I'm waiting for THAT study to come out.
What do you mean by "work"? Do you think there are people who would fail to maintain health on a low carbohydrate diet? I'm curious what research you're drawing on for that conclusion.0 -
Exactly, the body only uses gluclose so it transforms all fat to glucose (or is it glycogen) that is why we have fat. To repair/develop neural tissues and to have during times of famine.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
The question is what that means.
As stevencloser pointed out, in this case it means that glucose is so important to the body that it can't leave it to diet alone, but must have a backup system. (Or, to put it more correctly, although still inexpertly, it was so important that there was such a disadvantage to not having the backup that we evolved to have it.)
ketomom, on the other hand, keeps trying to twist it so that it means that consuming glucose is somehow something that should be minimized, and that glucose is generally bad for us.
That is not what essential nutrient means and makes no sense.
The argument that because glucose is not an essential nutrient we should be on LCHF diets is absurd, since no one recommends a no fat or no protein diet and the amount of fat and protein that is actually needed from the diet is easy to get in pretty much any macro split anyone will consume, at least in a society with enough food, which is what we are talking about.
In a society with a famine or food shortage, of course one can die from malnutrition due to a lack of fat or protein sources, but -- again, as stevencloser pointed out -- it takes far longer than it would if our bodies could not make glucose as a backup. That glucose is so important to our bodies is NOT a good argument for the claim that carbs are unimportant or "toxic" or that keto is a more natural state or all the rest of the LCHF dogma.
I'm twisting it? LOL No. I don't think so. There is only one definition of an essential nutrient. I'm using that term correctly. Something the body needs that you must consume to get.
You are pretending like it means something it does not. We aren't disagreeing that it's not an essential nutrient. As with evolution being a theory, that doesn't mean what you are trying to claim it means -- that fat is better for us and that the diet should be as low in carbs as possible.I am just reiterating (over and over) that LCHF is safe and one of the reasons is because there is no minimum carb requirement.
LCHF is safe, but since LCHF isn't no carb, this red herring about essential vs. non essential nutrients has nothing to do with it. (A no carb diet would be bad for you, but not because you'd lack essential glucose and die. Your body would take care of that. I don't think anyone is arguing that LCHF will kill you from a lack of essential nutrients, not even Campbell; it's a total strawman intended to suggest that the lower the carbs, the healthier the diet, as if we had to eat absurd amounts of fat to get in our "essential" fats. The amount of essential fat is pretty low. The discussion of macros here has nothing to do with making sure we get in enough fat or carbs, neither is an actual issue.)0 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »Many low-carb diets require that you only consume 15 to 20per cent of your total calories from carbs, which often eliminates nutritionally rich plant-based and complex carbohydrate foods that prevent diseases and promote health.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2569612/Are-low-carb-diets-BAD-Nutrition-expert-claims-giving-grains-lead-heart-disease-cancer.html#ixzz4O7y88qxR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
From the article... And apparently from someone that has never done a low carb diet "properly"
I eat TONS of vegetables. I also eat nuts, berries, peaches, apples sweet potatos legumes. *Lean*Beef, Fish, chicken, turkey.
What I don't eat or need Bread, Pasta, rice, russet potato. Candy. Sugar and Starch.
This article and many like it mistakenly assume that low-carbers aren't eating any vegetables or fruit. That's not the truth. Did you know ONE strawberry has like 5 calories. It's also an excellent source of vitamin C.
Starchy vegetables and bread products have a TON of calories by comparison to their *natural* counterparts and FAR FAR FAR FAR fewer micro nutrients.
So I get my calories from meat, vegetables, GOOD fats, and fruit. Just not overly processed foods down the grocery story aisles. My cholesterol is WAY DOWN because of it too.
So no "low carb" diets are not bad. Because for it to be high carb you need food that won't provide you essential micros. Low carb actually lays out rules that encourages you to eat large amounts of HEALTHY veggetables. Where else are you going to get your carbs if you don't get them from calorie laden breads, pastas, and rice?
Now *No Carb* diets are horrible for your kidneys and brain. Your brain needs glucose to operate and you can get that from your Vegetables, Beans, and Fruit.
Does it mean that you should eat a diet full of sausage and processed meat? No gawd no. And most people on these diets know that. Check out Paleo or Primal diets. Pre-packaged saturated fat ladened meat is not on the diet.
So you are limiting SFA?1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »So far, the answer to the initial question is: From what we know, low carb diets are perfectly healthy.
I would say (and said upthread):
(1) This nonsense about carbs being inessential and fats being essential has 0 to do with the discussion about LCHF vs. any other diet, as all diets being discussed contain (potentially) plenty of everything you need for health. Your body can make glucose, LCHF isn't no carb anyway, and no one is going to accidentally eat less fat than is necessary for health just because they aren't doing HF. The sole, only reason ketomom asserted that carbs aren't essential was to try and claim that lower carbs are inherently healthier. That claim is false (glucose is not an essential nutrient, of course, for the reasons that stevencloser explained, it's just not meaningful to the discussion).
(2) Some low carb diets are perfectly healthy and some are not. To the extent they are not (including in the argument by Campbell), it's not because they lack adequate glucose. Therefore, asserting that that's the claim under discussion is at best mistaken and at worst an effort to be intentionally misleading.
0 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »Exactly, the body only uses gluclose so it transforms all fat to glucose (or is it glycogen) that is why we have fat. To repair/develop neural tissues and to have during times of famine.
No, the body doesn't convert all fat to glucose. Glycogen comes from glucose, so technically it is possible for fat to be converted to glucose and then to glycogen, but not typical. This is why LCHF dieters tend to have reduced glycogen stores... glycogen is used to create glucose at first, and then fat and protein are used to create glucose without a lot of extra glucose being produced simply to fill up glycogen reserves. Among the 3 main (yes, I'm leaving out muscle) energy sources (glucose, glycogen, and fat), glucose is the most bio-available and is the form primarily used. Glycogen and fat are mostly storage. Usually when someone eats carbs, the immediate glucose doesn't all get used (unless they eat a very small amount of carbs or exercise enough to use it immediately). It goes into storage. But you are not eating carbs every hour of every day, right? So your body will then create its own glucose by bringing it out of storage. A similar process applies to dietary protein and fat as to body protein (muscle) and fat.
Still, I don't see how this makes a low carb diet unhealthy.0 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »Many low-carb diets require that you only consume 15 to 20per cent of your total calories from carbs, which often eliminates nutritionally rich plant-based and complex carbohydrate foods that prevent diseases and promote health.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2569612/Are-low-carb-diets-BAD-Nutrition-expert-claims-giving-grains-lead-heart-disease-cancer.html#ixzz4O7y88qxR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
From the article... And apparently from someone that has never done a low carb diet "properly"
I eat TONS of vegetables. I also eat nuts, berries, peaches, apples sweet potatos legumes. *Lean*Beef, Fish, chicken, turkey.
Good for you. You probably do what I would consider a healthful version of the LCHF diet. You apparently haven't been following all the discussions on MFP where LCHF folks insist that fruit is full of sugar and therefore bad for us, and that even vegetables can be negative vs. keeping carbs down further, and that they are completely unimportant for health. So they might disagree with you as to what doing LCHF "properly" involves.
I also agree with cwolfman that there are many whole foods that are high carb and I see no reason to avoid them, but if you want to, go for it.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
You misunderstand what he is saying.
Glucose is so vital to biological function that the body will manufacture it.
That's why we don't need to ingest it.
THAT is what he's saying.
Yup, it's too important for you to be dependant on eating it. A single longish intense exercise session can use up your glycogen, if you couldn't create more glucose you'd simply cease functioning a short while later as your blood sugar drops towards 0.
True IF one wasn't yet adapted to burn fat and be fueled by ketones instead of glucose.
The study that shows this: http://www.vespapower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Volek-Metabolism-FASTER-2015-Final.pdf0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
The question is what that means.
As stevencloser pointed out, in this case it means that glucose is so important to the body that it can't leave it to diet alone, but must have a backup system. (Or, to put it more correctly, although still inexpertly, it was so important that there was such a disadvantage to not having the backup that we evolved to have it.)
ketomom, on the other hand, keeps trying to twist it so that it means that consuming glucose is somehow something that should be minimized, and that glucose is generally bad for us.
That is not what essential nutrient means and makes no sense.
The argument that because glucose is not an essential nutrient we should be on LCHF diets is absurd, since no one recommends a no fat or no protein diet and the amount of fat and protein that is actually needed from the diet is easy to get in pretty much any macro split anyone will consume, at least in a society with enough food, which is what we are talking about.
In a society with a famine or food shortage, of course one can die from malnutrition due to a lack of fat or protein sources, but -- again, as stevencloser pointed out -- it takes far longer than it would if our bodies could not make glucose as a backup. That glucose is so important to our bodies is NOT a good argument for the claim that carbs are unimportant or "toxic" or that keto is a more natural state or all the rest of the LCHF dogma.
I'm twisting it? LOL No. I don't think so. There is only one definition of an essential nutrient. I'm using that term correctly. Something the body needs that you must consume to get.
The body needs glucose. Between 40-150g per day.... I think I said this already. Anyways. We make glucose. We don't need to eat it. Done.
We need oxygen. Does that mean we should seek out atmospheres of 40-60% oxygen instead of our lower oxygen atmosphere (what is it? 21%?). More isn't needed.
More glucose (from the diet) is also not needed. That is my point. You could use more glucose and eat more, but you don't need to.
And I never said because glucose is non-essential that we should all be LCHF. Nor did I EVER say "toxic". I don't think I am the one twisting anything here.
I said that we would die without our minimum glucose. It's true. Glucose is important. So is a large number of other chemicals in the body. But unless you are living without a functioning liver it really is a non issue. We make glucose. No one is going to die from lack of glucose. Even if you never eat a carby food.
I am just reiterating (over and over) that LCHF is safe and one of the reasons is because there is no minimum carb requirement. This thread is about LCHF safety, right? Well, low carbers don't need to worry about going too low and depriving their bodies of an essential nutrient because carbs are not essential. The body is designed to meet our glucose (because it is another important thing the body uses).
Question for you then, If you need 40-150g of glucose per day and you aren't eating high protein either, then were are you getting your glucose from? You can't make it from fat so are you pulling out of your skeletal muscles?
And yes, this is an honest question because I'm not sure where you are getting enough protein or carbs from if you are trying to eat say below 20g or carbs and below 50 or 60g or protein. Are my number unrealistic?
First, the answer is yes... dietary protein or body protein (muscles).
Second, it is possible to make glucose from fat. I would suggest that the idea that it isn't possible must come from someone not up to date on the latest science; but with 40 years of progressive research on the topic, "latest" doesn't seem to be the right word.
Yes, of course, I only took biochem, and you?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
The question is what that means.
As stevencloser pointed out, in this case it means that glucose is so important to the body that it can't leave it to diet alone, but must have a backup system. (Or, to put it more correctly, although still inexpertly, it was so important that there was such a disadvantage to not having the backup that we evolved to have it.)
ketomom, on the other hand, keeps trying to twist it so that it means that consuming glucose is somehow something that should be minimized, and that glucose is generally bad for us.
That is not what essential nutrient means and makes no sense.
The argument that because glucose is not an essential nutrient we should be on LCHF diets is absurd, since no one recommends a no fat or no protein diet and the amount of fat and protein that is actually needed from the diet is easy to get in pretty much any macro split anyone will consume, at least in a society with enough food, which is what we are talking about.
In a society with a famine or food shortage, of course one can die from malnutrition due to a lack of fat or protein sources, but -- again, as stevencloser pointed out -- it takes far longer than it would if our bodies could not make glucose as a backup. That glucose is so important to our bodies is NOT a good argument for the claim that carbs are unimportant or "toxic" or that keto is a more natural state or all the rest of the LCHF dogma.
I'm twisting it? LOL No. I don't think so. There is only one definition of an essential nutrient. I'm using that term correctly. Something the body needs that you must consume to get.
You are pretending like it means something it does not. We aren't disagreeing that it's not an essential nutrient. As with evolution being a theory, that doesn't mean what you are trying to claim it means -- that fat is better for us and that the diet should be as low in carbs as possible.I am just reiterating (over and over) that LCHF is safe and one of the reasons is because there is no minimum carb requirement.
LCHF is safe, but since LCHF isn't no carb, this red herring about essential vs. non essential nutrients has nothing to do with it. (A no carb diet would be bad for you, but not because you'd lack essential glucose and die. Your body would take care of that. I don't think anyone is arguing that LCHF will kill you from a lack of essential nutrients, not even Campbell; it's a total strawman intended to suggest that the lower the carbs, the healthier the diet, as if we had to eat absurd amounts of fat to get in our "essential" fats. The amount of essential fat is pretty low. The discussion of macros here has nothing to do with making sure we get in enough fat or carbs, neither is an actual issue.)
I'm not pretending anything. Just pointing out it's safety. It is. Even almost zero carb is safe. It just isn't accptable in people's minds who have been trained in the dogma of the need for grains, fruits and veggies to be the basis for a healthy diet. It doesn't have to be. Can those foods be the basis for a healthy diet? Sure! Veganism can be very healthy. Can a carnivorous diet be healthy? Sure! Both are safe (if you supplement the vegan with B12).
And fat is better for me, someone with insulin resistance, than carbs are. That's why I replaced most of my carbs with fat - mainly the grains and sugars. I kept veggies because I like them.
I don't understand where people are getting the idea that a (almost) zero carb diet is not safe? Eggs, meat, seafood and dairy.... what could be wrong with that for the typical person? It doesn't even need to be high protein.... This is a rhetorical qustion not directed at you. I wonder if vegetarianism was looked at like this in the past? Unhealthy and strange?2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »http://www.dictionary.com/browse/essential-nutrient
essential nutrient
noun
any substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs
I understand what you are saying but I think you are still playing with words to make your point.
Yes we need somewhere between 40g and 150g of glucose per day depending on if you are fat adapted. And yes, you will run out of glucose within a couple of days depending on your situation after which point you would die. About the same length of time you could go without water, which is classified as an essential nutrient because you can't make it.
Can we just call glucose important instead? Like oxygen? A crucial substance? Essential nutrient's definition is taken.
He's not the one calling it an essential nutrient.
You are.
He's telling you why it's not.
I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but that is the opposite of what I'm seeing.
But if @stevencloser agrees that glucose is NOT an essential nutrient... something you and I understand differently it seems... then where is the disagreement?
I can clearly understand that @nvmomketo says glucose is NOT an essential nutrient because of the definition:any substance that must be obtained from the diet...
And because glucose does not need to come from diet, it fails to qualify as an essential nutrient.
The question is what that means.
As stevencloser pointed out, in this case it means that glucose is so important to the body that it can't leave it to diet alone, but must have a backup system. (Or, to put it more correctly, although still inexpertly, it was so important that there was such a disadvantage to not having the backup that we evolved to have it.)
ketomom, on the other hand, keeps trying to twist it so that it means that consuming glucose is somehow something that should be minimized, and that glucose is generally bad for us.
That is not what essential nutrient means and makes no sense.
The argument that because glucose is not an essential nutrient we should be on LCHF diets is absurd, since no one recommends a no fat or no protein diet and the amount of fat and protein that is actually needed from the diet is easy to get in pretty much any macro split anyone will consume, at least in a society with enough food, which is what we are talking about.
In a society with a famine or food shortage, of course one can die from malnutrition due to a lack of fat or protein sources, but -- again, as stevencloser pointed out -- it takes far longer than it would if our bodies could not make glucose as a backup. That glucose is so important to our bodies is NOT a good argument for the claim that carbs are unimportant or "toxic" or that keto is a more natural state or all the rest of the LCHF dogma.
I'm twisting it? LOL No. I don't think so. There is only one definition of an essential nutrient. I'm using that term correctly. Something the body needs that you must consume to get.
You are pretending like it means something it does not. We aren't disagreeing that it's not an essential nutrient. As with evolution being a theory, that doesn't mean what you are trying to claim it means -- that fat is better for us and that the diet should be as low in carbs as possible.I am just reiterating (over and over) that LCHF is safe and one of the reasons is because there is no minimum carb requirement.
LCHF is safe, but since LCHF isn't no carb, this red herring about essential vs. non essential nutrients has nothing to do with it. (A no carb diet would be bad for you, but not because you'd lack essential glucose and die. Your body would take care of that. I don't think anyone is arguing that LCHF will kill you from a lack of essential nutrients, not even Campbell; it's a total strawman intended to suggest that the lower the carbs, the healthier the diet, as if we had to eat absurd amounts of fat to get in our "essential" fats. The amount of essential fat is pretty low. The discussion of macros here has nothing to do with making sure we get in enough fat or carbs, neither is an actual issue.)
I'm not pretending anything. Just pointing out it's safety. It is. Even almost zero carb is safe.
No one is saying it is not, at least not due to the lack of glucose. Maybe that's the reason for the disconnect? You are arguing against something no one is saying.It just isn't accptable in people's minds who have been trained in the dogma of the need for grains, fruits and veggies to be the basis for a healthy diet.
I think (as you know) that it is unhealthy to avoid vegetables without a real medical reason (like digestive issues or an allergy to all of them, which must be extremely rare). But that has nothing to do with glucose being required, as I agree the body can make glucose (and I don't really think low carbers don't get in glucose anyway, since they aren't no carbers).
If you need to you can supplement or get in everything through careful diet planning involving raw or extremely rare meat and offal, but I don't believe that most who go on about vegetables being overrated actually eat in such a way and even if that micronutrient issue is resolved I do think the evidence indicates that largely plant-based diets are healthier that those with almost no plants. But I don't say that LCHF is bad for you as a result,* because I think a LCHF diet can easily include lots of plants and be healthier (and I happen to agree that while grains can be healthy choices for those of us without celiac that they aren't particularly important to include).
*Campbell does, of course, but he also thinks that large amounts of animal protein and fat are bad for us in general, and so of course is concerned about a diet that often maximizes them. My own concern is more that if one eats 75% of one's diet in fat, most of that fat really doesn't provide much in the way of nutrients. The counter-argument (which I don't totally accept) is the one people often make here against "clean eating" or the like -- you don't get extra-credit for getting in more than you need.0
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
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions