Low Carber Daily Forum

Join

is there a matrix with all the low carb diets?

tmoneyag99
tmoneyag99 Posts: 491 Member
edited November 2024 in Social Groups
There is Atkins, keto, LCHF, Southbeach.

I'm so confused. I know we have a launch pad but I would love to see a matrix that showed the similarities and the differences between each low carb diet.
«1

Replies

  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Personally, I find it better to avoid the "commercial diets" (Atkins, South Beach) and focus more on hitting the right macros at the right timing for me. Everyone who does something similar is basically doing their own version of low carb. This is going to be enormous.
  • mmultanen
    mmultanen Posts: 1,029 Member
    A brief and certainly not comprehensive info graphic. There are some broad generalities and in terms of information it is designed to be pretty, not scientific. Blue Tree Health is a weight loss company so take it for what it's worth. BUT it is a high level over view of some of the basics of the low carb -osphere.

    http://www.bluetreehealthtx.com/whats-the-best-low-carb-diet-for-me/
  • FIT_Goat
    FIT_Goat Posts: 4,227 Member
    Here would be the zerocarb / carnivore column for that chart.
    zvrqvkukgd19.png
  • Flybeetle
    Flybeetle Posts: 387 Member
    Am I correct to conclude that "Banting" is the same as "LCHF"??
  • 2t9nty
    2t9nty Posts: 1,653 Member
    Banting was an early (Civil War era) advocate of a LC diet. It is a historical reference.
  • kpk54
    kpk54 Posts: 4,474 Member
    Flybeetle wrote: »
    Am I correct to conclude that "Banting" is the same as "LCHF"??

    William Banting was a chubby undertaker in London in the mid 1800s who went on a diet of high fat. You can find a pdf of his Letters on Corpulence on line via a google search. You can also look up Banting Diet and it will give you specifics on the current version of the Banting Diet popularized by Tim Noakes as The Real Meal Revolution and yes-LCHF.

    https://realmealrevolution.com/10-commandments-beginner-banting/
  • camtosh
    camtosh Posts: 898 Member
    Flybeetle wrote: »
    Am I correct to conclude that "Banting" is the same as "LCHF"??

    There's​ ​a​ ​spectrum​ ​of​ ​low​ ​carb​ ​diets,​ ​from​ ​zero​ ​carb​ ​(aka​ ​Meativores)​ ​to​ ​the​ ​carb-full​ ​Standard American​ ​Diet​ ​(SAD).​ ​Some​ ​people​ ​also​ ​do​ ​low​ ​carb,​ ​high​ ​fat​ ​vegetarian.
    How Jimmy Moore defined them:
    Zero​ ​carb:​​ ​Less​ ​than​ ​10​ ​grams​ ​of​ ​carbs​ ​daily​ ​and​ ​5%​ ​calories​ ​daily
    Low-carb​ ​ketogenic​ ​diet​ ​(LCKD):​​ ​less​ ​than​ ​50g​ ​carbs​ ​and​ ​10%​ ​calories​ ​daily
    Low-carb​ ​diet​ ​(LCD):​​ ​50-130g​ ​carbs​ ​daily​ ​and​ ​between​ ​10-26%​ ​of​ ​calories
    Moderate-carb​ ​diet​ ​(MCD):​ ​​130-225g​ ​carbs​ ​daily​ ​and​ ​between​ ​26-45%​ ​of​ ​calories
    High-carb​ ​diet​ ​(SAD):​ ​​Greater​ ​than​ ​225​ ​carbs​ ​daily
    Source: http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/what-is-a-low-carb-diet-researchers-have-now-defined-it/6648
  • LolaDeeDaisy23
    LolaDeeDaisy23 Posts: 383 Member
    Wait...why are peanuts excluded for LCHF?? Or cashews for that matter. Sure cashews are higher carb, but if it you make it fit your macros, why not?
  • FIT_Goat
    FIT_Goat Posts: 4,227 Member
    LolaDeeDaisy23 wrote: »
    Wait...why are peanuts excluded for LCHF?? Or cashews for that matter. Sure cashews are higher carb, but if it you make it fit your macros, why not?

    There are forms of keto/LCHF that allow peanuts. In general, they are not preferred. They are higher in antinutrients, carbs, and a lot of things that people try and avoid. If they fit into your macros and other goals, then there is nothing that says you can't have them.
  • 2t9nty
    2t9nty Posts: 1,653 Member
    edited January 2018
    I eat peanuts almost every day. The ones I get are 1 net carb per oz. I like them, and they fill the void - give my stomach something to work on. I can keep them in my desk at work.

    I have not really followed any particular plan or read a book about Banting or anything. I just keep net carbs under 20 and meet my protein goal. I have a calorie limit. This works for me.
  • LolaDeeDaisy23
    LolaDeeDaisy23 Posts: 383 Member
    FIT_Goat wrote: »
    LolaDeeDaisy23 wrote: »
    Wait...why are peanuts excluded for LCHF?? Or cashews for that matter. Sure cashews are higher carb, but if it you make it fit your macros, why not?

    There are forms of keto/LCHF that allow peanuts. In general, they are not preferred. They are higher in antinutrients, carbs, and a lot of things that people try and avoid. If they fit into your macros and other goals, then there is nothing that says you can't have them.

    I haven’t seen anything in the Launchpad that says peanuts are not preferred or that many people try to avoid it. Can you please link some articles regarding this? I’d like to read them please... considering I eat about 2-4 tablespoons of peanut butter and almond butter per day.
  • kpk54
    kpk54 Posts: 4,474 Member
    Google aflatoxins in peanuts. Peanuts are a legume. Paleo is anti legume. Because peanuts have whatever Paleo people don't favor in legumes plus have aflatoxins, no one eating Paleo would want to eat peanuts. I say, groovy. More for me.
  • LolaDeeDaisy23
    LolaDeeDaisy23 Posts: 383 Member
    I understand why Paleo would not eat peanuts but I’m talking purely on the LCHF side
  • FIT_Goat
    FIT_Goat Posts: 4,227 Member
    edited January 2018
    There are many reasons, but I am not the best person to ask. I am anti-plants in general. When we wrote the Launchpad, we went for the broad definition of LCHF. As you are aware, we didn't feel that peanuts were worth excluding specifically. If people wanted to include them or not include them, it would be their choice.
    • peanuts have a ton of omega-6 fatty acids and virtually no omega-3s
    • they are higher carb (both net and total) than real nuts
    • peanuts have anti-nutrients like phytic acid which binds with the few nutrients in peanuts and make them less available
    • they are highly palatable and cause over-consumption issues for a lot of people

    There are probably more, but these are just off the top of my head. I'm anti-plants across the board and would be just as quick to tell you that spinach is bad for you. If you like peanuts, have at them. There are LCHF diets that do not encourage them (https://thenoakesfoundation.org/nutrition-network/nuts-on-the-lchf-diet-can-you-eat-peanuts-on-a-low-carb-diet), but it isn't universal.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    baconslave wrote: »
    LolaDeeDaisy23 wrote: »
    I understand why Paleo would not eat peanuts but I’m talking purely on the LCHF side
    FIT_Goat wrote: »
    There are many reasons, but I am not the best person to ask. I am anti-plants in general. When we wrote the Launchpad, we went for the broad definition of LCHF. As you are aware, we didn't feel that peanuts were worth excluding specifically. If people wanted to include them or not include them, it would be their choice.
    • peanuts have a ton of omega-6 fatty acids and virtually no omega-3s
    • they are higher carb (both net and total) than real nuts
    • peanuts have anti-nutrients like phytic acid which binds with the few nutrients in peanuts and make them less available
    • they are highly palatable and cause over-consumption issues for a lot of people

    There are probably more, but these are just off the top of my head. I'm anti-plants across the board and would be just as quick to tell you that spinach is bad for you. If you like peanuts, have at them. There are LCHF diets that do not encourage them (https://thenoakesfoundation.org/nutrition-network/nuts-on-the-lchf-diet-can-you-eat-peanuts-on-a-low-carb-diet), but it isn't universal.

    Goat hit it pretty well.
    Coming from a former IIFYM-Keto person, at sub-20g total, I stayed away from them because they had too many carbs so I couldn't get as many veggies in. At 20 or 30g net, I allowed them in, but I had to be careful with them. They are calorie bombs, a bit higher in carbs (like those damn devil cashews), and they are hard to moderate for some people. If I don't watch it, I'm like a effin cracked-out squirrel. It's ugly. Nut-apocalypse. All the nuts, in my mouth, cheeks puffed out like a hamster. :wink:

    That's about it for me too.

    And cheese... Gotta be careful about cheese. It fits my macros but I can eat waaay too much of it.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    I shoot for 5/15/80% CPF with less meat than ever which is mainly tuna/olive oil McDonald's quarter pounder patties now. I do tree nuts and 100% cacao bars all day for snacks. Most calories from coconut products.

    LCHF to me is keeping carbs =< 50 grams daily..

    I have taken religion out of my WOE and just eat for better health and health markers. While I don't eat sugar or anything containing any form of any grains that is for pain management to avoid taking Enbrel injections.

    There is nothing to count or track because that is done daily by just stepping on the scales daily.

    My version of LCHF has been working fine for over three years. At my age I am down to KISS.

    I do most of the supplements I noted at ketolivewell.com but I don't promote them with out a reason. Mine are mainly from foods that I seldom otherwise eat.
  • retirehappy
    retirehappy Posts: 3,513 Member
    LolaDeeDaisy23 wrote: »
    Wait...why are peanuts excluded for LCHF?? Or cashews for that matter. Sure cashews are higher carb, but if it you make it fit your macros, why not?

    Because peanuts are not nuts, they are legumes, and high in carbs.

    Cashews are very high in carbs as true nuts go. Of the two, nutritionally, cashews win, if it fits into your carb count/macros, go ahead and have a few.

    My husband has told me there is no such thing as a few cashews. I don't eat them because of that, when I did eat them I ended up gaining weight (pre keto/lchf life) YMMV.
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    retirehappy wrote: »
    LolaDeeDaisy23 wrote: »
    Wait...why are peanuts excluded for LCHF?? Or cashews for that matter. Sure cashews are higher carb, but if it you make it fit your macros, why not?

    Because peanuts are not nuts, they are legumes, and high in carbs.

    Cashews are very high in carbs as true nuts go. Of the two, nutritionally, cashews win, if it fits into your carb count/macros, go ahead and have a few.

    My husband has told me there is no such thing as a few cashews. I don't eat them because of that, when I did eat them I ended up gaining weight (pre keto/lchf life) YMMV.

    Same with most all nuts... "a few" becomes a few lbs. before even realizing it.
  • MistressPi
    MistressPi Posts: 514 Member
    Not a matrix, but a page that provides details about many popular low carb diets. Worth a browse.

    http://www.lowcarb.ca/atkins-diet-and-low-carb-plans/
  • FIT_Goat
    FIT_Goat Posts: 4,227 Member
    edited January 2018
    I don't even know what to say here. Some low-carb diets forbid all nuts, some forbid certain kinds, some restrict them, and some low-carb diets allow them (within their macro framework). No one here is telling you (or anyone else) they can't eat peanuts.

    All the points you brought up have some validity.

    1. Most peanut butter is a junk food and contains cheap oils and sugars that are not good for you.
    2. Some people have issues controlling their intake when consuming nuts, and those people should tend to avoid them (or at least strictly monitor their intake).
    3. It is not possible to avoid omega-6 fatty acids. But omega-6 fatty acids are not a problem, the stunningly high amount of omega-6 fatty acids our modern diet contains is a problem. Yes, you can approach it from both sides (lower 6s and raise 3s), but it will be impossible to raise 3s high enough. And, for all we know, at those levels they could be bad for us also. The better side of the spectrum is lowering omega-6s. Depending on how unprocessed your diet is and if you use certain plant oils, nuts (which are high in omega-6s) may not be an issue because your other sources are low enough.
    4. Did you notice the commercial ground beef had more omega 3s? It's mostly because it is fattier. But, that ratio is much better than the 20:1 ratio many people consume. The omega 6 levels in meat is nothing to nuts. The peanuts will have almost 14 grams in 3 ounces compared to the 0.67 grams in the poor quality beef.
    5. Organic is a fun word. I haven't seen actual research that shows any benefit from it though.

    Look, eat what you want. No one is the food police. Like you, yourself, already acknowledged, the posted advice doesn't prohibit them. Some diets do, though. I wouldn't eat peanuts. That is my own issue though.

    Edit: this doesn't even address all the problems with nuts and peanuts. But, who cares? If you can eat them without problems then eat them. I wouldn't promote them as universally acceptable, but everyone is free to do what they want.
  • LolaDeeDaisy23
    LolaDeeDaisy23 Posts: 383 Member
    FIT_Goat wrote: »
    I don't even know what to say here. Some low-carb diets forbid all nuts, some forbid certain kinds, some restrict them, and some low-carb diets allow them (within their macro framework). No one here is telling you (or anyone else) they can't eat peanuts.

    All the points you brought up have some validity.

    1. Most peanut butter is a junk food and contains cheap oils and sugars that are not good for you.
    2. Some people have issues controlling their intake when consuming nuts, and those people should tend to avoid them (or at least strictly monitor their intake).
    3. It is not possible to avoid omega-6 fatty acids. But omega-6 fatty acids are not a problem, the stunningly high amount of omega-6 fatty acids our modern diet contains is a problem. Yes, you can approach it from both sides (lower 6s and raise 3s), but it will be impossible to raise 3s high enough. And, for all we know, at those levels they could be bad for us also. The better side of the spectrum is lowering omega-6s. Depending on how unprocessed your diet is and if you use certain plant oils, nuts (which are high in omega-6s) may not be an issue because your other sources are low enough.
    4. Did you notice the commercial ground beef had more omega 3s? It's mostly because it is fattier. But, that ratio is much better than the 20:1 ratio many people consume. The omega 6 levels in meat is nothing to nuts. The peanuts will have almost 14 grams in 3 ounces compared to the 0.67 grams in the poor quality beef.
    5. Organic is a fun word. I haven't seen actual research that shows any benefit from it though.

    Look, eat what you want. No one is the food police. Like you, yourself, already acknowledged, the posted advice doesn't prohibit them. Some diets do, though. I wouldn't eat peanuts. That is my own issue though.

    Edit: this doesn't even address all the problems with nuts and peanuts. But, who cares? If you can eat them without problems then eat them. I wouldn't promote them as universally acceptable, but everyone is free to do what they want.

    I don't understand how my points have "some validity"? Sure the grain fed beef had 30mg more omega-3 than grass-fed, but we both agree that the omega-6:omega-3 ratio is what's important. People should aim for 2:1 ratio of omega-6:omega-3. And what's 30mg more, when grain fed beef has a ratio of 670:103 and grass fed has a ratio 162:74? The grass fed beef has almost a perfect 2:1 ratio.

    Organic is a fun word, and honestly I'm not 100% certain how "clean" our USDA Organic foods are. I still need to dive into more research about that. If you find anything, please post some links.

    Now I'm not saying I'm the food police, I was just taken aback to see that LCHF listed nuts as a no-go. This was the first time I came across that in my 3 years of keto. I'm even more surprised that people are so quick to villainize nuts on LCHF when dairy is more of a problem
    food...considering that dairy is known to cause stalls and other issues with many people.

    We both agree that peanuts are high in omega-6, but everything in moderation. If your diet is well balanced and you're including enough DHA and EPA, then I don't see anything wrong with including natural, unprocessed nut butters?
  • FIT_Goat
    FIT_Goat Posts: 4,227 Member
    "some validity" == "Your points aren't wrong, but the conclusion that peanuts should be universally more accepted isn't justified by them." Is that better?

    It is better to have 15 ounces of commercially raised ground beef and no peanuts (3.4g:0.5g -- ~7:1), than it is to have 21 ounces of grass-finished beef and 3 ounces of peanuts (15g:0.5g -- ~30:1), despite the fact that you get the same amount of omega-3s. In general, lowering levels of omega-6 makes it easier to get closer to an ideal ration than attempting to raise omega-3s to balance out over-consumption of n-6s. Cutting out plant/seed oils and processed foods goes a very long way to reducing those n-6s that dominate the normal ratio. With that in play, you might be just fine with some high-ish sources like nuts.

    Dairy is definitely a problem food. It's the first thing I ask about when people have trouble with the carnivore diet. It gets plenty of hate.

    Keto, in particular, tends to be very pro-nuts. Lots of keto friendly faux foods, fat bombs, and other treats involve nuts, nut butters, or nut flours. As keto trends upwards and has become the dominant face of LCHF, the varying levels of intolerance for nut products in other LCHF diets does tend to be a shock. Nuts, along with dairy and artificial sweeteners, should be in a "your mileage may vary" disclaimer for most diets. Some forms skipped the ambiguity and just restricted or banned them from the start.

    I, personally, don't believe in supplementing my diet with things that make up for deficiencies in food. For that reason, I don't attempt to artificially raise my intake of n-3s. I think it has a high probability of being like other things that we have been told to supplement, where the item we're supplementing isn't the effective agent in the actual studies but is a symptom of eating better foods that are closer to their natural state.
  • baconslave
    baconslave Posts: 7,038 Member
    LolaDeeDaisy23 wrote: »
    FIT_Goat wrote: »
    I don't even know what to say here. Some low-carb diets forbid all nuts, some forbid certain kinds, some restrict them, and some low-carb diets allow them (within their macro framework). No one here is telling you (or anyone else) they can't eat peanuts.

    All the points you brought up have some validity.

    1. Most peanut butter is a junk food and contains cheap oils and sugars that are not good for you.
    2. Some people have issues controlling their intake when consuming nuts, and those people should tend to avoid them (or at least strictly monitor their intake).
    3. It is not possible to avoid omega-6 fatty acids. But omega-6 fatty acids are not a problem, the stunningly high amount of omega-6 fatty acids our modern diet contains is a problem. Yes, you can approach it from both sides (lower 6s and raise 3s), but it will be impossible to raise 3s high enough. And, for all we know, at those levels they could be bad for us also. The better side of the spectrum is lowering omega-6s. Depending on how unprocessed your diet is and if you use certain plant oils, nuts (which are high in omega-6s) may not be an issue because your other sources are low enough.
    4. Did you notice the commercial ground beef had more omega 3s? It's mostly because it is fattier. But, that ratio is much better than the 20:1 ratio many people consume. The omega 6 levels in meat is nothing to nuts. The peanuts will have almost 14 grams in 3 ounces compared to the 0.67 grams in the poor quality beef.
    5. Organic is a fun word. I haven't seen actual research that shows any benefit from it though.

    Look, eat what you want. No one is the food police. Like you, yourself, already acknowledged, the posted advice doesn't prohibit them. Some diets do, though. I wouldn't eat peanuts. That is my own issue though.

    Edit: this doesn't even address all the problems with nuts and peanuts. But, who cares? If you can eat them without problems then eat them. I wouldn't promote them as universally acceptable, but everyone is free to do what they want.

    I don't understand how my points have "some validity"? Sure the grain fed beef had 30mg more omega-3 than grass-fed, but we both agree that the omega-6:omega-3 ratio is what's important. People should aim for 2:1 ratio of omega-6:omega-3. And what's 30mg more, when grain fed beef has a ratio of 670:103 and grass fed has a ratio 162:74? The grass fed beef has almost a perfect 2:1 ratio.

    Organic is a fun word, and honestly I'm not 100% certain how "clean" our USDA Organic foods are. I still need to dive into more research about that. If you find anything, please post some links.

    Now I'm not saying I'm the food police, I was just taken aback to see that LCHF listed nuts as a no-go. This was the first time I came across that in my 3 years of keto. I'm even more surprised that people are so quick to villainize nuts on LCHF when dairy is more of a problem
    food...considering that dairy is known to cause stalls and other issues with many people.

    We both agree that peanuts are high in omega-6, but everything in moderation. If your diet is well balanced and you're including enough DHA and EPA, then I don't see anything wrong with including natural, unprocessed nut butters?



    As far as I can tell from a quick glance, we've already addressed the some of the why upthread. I mean other than many plans don't count calories necessarily and so "hello calorie bombs." Upthread I'm pretty sure that someone mentioned legumes. And anti-nutrients.
    Ah..here it was:
    FIT_Goat wrote: »
    LolaDeeDaisy23 wrote: »
    Wait...why are peanuts excluded for LCHF?? Or cashews for that matter. Sure cashews are higher carb, but if it you make it fit your macros, why not?

    There are forms of keto/LCHF that allow peanuts. In general, they are not preferred. They are higher in antinutrients, carbs, and a lot of things that people try and avoid. If they fit into your macros and other goals, then there is nothing that says you can't have them.

    Noakes, Paleo, and Primal on the chart upthread are all variations on the same argument. To elaborate check out Noakes's arguments below.

    Noakes says: " Nuts are lower in carbs and great snack foods, but you must not go overboard. Nuts may cause weight gain in some individuals. That’s why we’ve also limited them during Transformation, the weight loss phase. Macadamias are best as they are loaded with healthy fat and almonds are packed with fibre and goodness. Always choose raw nuts in preference to commercially roasted nuts (which are actually deep fried – unless they are specified as ‘dry-roasted’)." "Don’t lie to yourself. Watch out for carbs disguised as proteins. Eating carbs that are perceived to be proteins, like legumes, baked beans, peanuts (allowed during Restoration) and quinoa (Preservation only), will undermine your attempts to burn fat. Pay attention to which lists you are allowed to eat from and in which phase.

    For more on Noakes's why on peanuts: https://realmealrevolution.com/real-thinking/peanut-more-pea-or-nut/
    A quick skim looks like anti-nutrient argument, possible mold and pesticide contamination. Omega 6 vs. Omega 3s. And this is all tied to gut health disruption. But it looks like high quality ones are ok in moderation in different phases of his plan.

    TL;DR-To them peanuts are beans/legumes. So higher in carbs and anti-nutrients, maybe have mold and too many bad chemicals on them, and are often roasted in bad oils.

    Atkins is no nuts or peanuts. In some phases. But Atkins allows nuts in later phases. Not ok for induction. Because carbs. As they are trying to encourage you to build the habit of using your carbs on green veggies.
    Now I'm not saying I'm the food police, I was just taken aback to see that LCHF listed nuts as a no-go. This was the first time I came across that in my 3 years of keto. I'm even more surprised that people are so quick to villainize nuts on LCHF when dairy is more of a problem
    food...considering that dairy is known to cause stalls and other issues with many people.

    I started my low-carb WOE with keto in June of 2014. In the regular plain ol' run-of-the-mill keto, peanuts are fine IIFYM. Diet Doctor is cool with them in moderation AFAIK. Atkins is cool with a little bit later on. It's those who are doing Noakes's Banting, and the paleo/primal keto people who are discerning regarding the nuts. No one else really cares besides. Other than the degree to which I care-that other people share, which is my hands become Evil Dead around them and start cramming them in my eat-hole. That's why they are the devil. A lot of people just say no nuts or peanuts period and are against them because of this. I eat them anyway; I just have to find ways to moderate them.

    All all keto is LCHF but not all LCHF is keto. The difference is emphasis on a low-carb high fat plan to achieve ketosis vs. no emphasis on ketosis just on the LC and HF parts. You throw in paleo keto or paleo LCHF, then you start hating on the peanuts.

    There really is no consensus on this across the board at all. So you can't really say LCHF is against peanuts. They're against too much of certain carbs. Some versions of LCHF are due to paleo/primal leanings and arguments. Some are just against it because calories, and they feel it's wasting carbs (as in they are taking away the place where the nutrients from green veggies belong.)
  • 2t9nty
    2t9nty Posts: 1,653 Member
    I am curious. Is there hard science behind the omega ratios? I understand there are probably a dozen people with TED talks who use this trope, but I am not so interested in the fact that it is widespread. I am just interested in your basic peer-reviewed, double blind study of omega-3 and omega-6 ratios and the measurable impact on health, well-being, whatever.

    Having asked that, I am totally good with the answer that it is one of those things to be on your radar when there are issues with symptom x. Presumably all of us are in n=1 mode sometimes. You make a change and see what it does. This is the YMMV thing because it is common enough to note while the hard science does not really seem to weigh in.
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    edited January 2018
    As far as I'm aware the omega-3/6 ratio originates from conventional sources - the whole eating fish/plants/whole grains (and limiting meat, red especially) being heart healthy belief. Harvard Nutrition is probably as good a place as any to start looking for the quality of evidence being used to support those recommendations:

    Most Americans take in far more of another essential fat—omega-6 fats—than they do omega-3 fats. Some experts have raised the hypothesis that this higher intake of omega-6 fats could pose problems, cardiovascular and otherwise, but this has not been supported by evidence in humans. (4)

    Omega-3 Fatty Acids: An Essential Contribution
  • LolaDeeDaisy23
    LolaDeeDaisy23 Posts: 383 Member
    baconslave wrote: »
    All all keto is LCHF but not all LCHF is keto. The difference is emphasis on a low-carb high fat plan to achieve ketosis vs. no emphasis on ketosis just on the LC and HF parts. You throw in paleo keto or paleo LCHF, then you start hating on the peanuts.

    There really is no consensus on this across the board at all. So you can't really say LCHF is against peanuts. They're against too much of certain carbs. Some versions of LCHF are due to paleo/primal leanings and arguments. Some are just against it because calories, and they feel it's wasting carbs (as in they are taking away the place where the nutrients from green veggies belong.)

    Thank you.

    And regarding hard science on the omega-6/omega-3 ratio, I found this study:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4808858/

    Conclusion and Recommendations from the author:
    "A balance existed between omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids during the long evolutionary history of the genus Homo [34]. During evolution, omega-3 fatty acids were found in all foods consumed: particularly meat, fish, wild plants, nuts and berries [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50]. Recent studies by Cordain et al. [51] on the composition of the meat of wild animals confirm the original observations of Crawford and Sinclair et al. [36,52]. However, rapid dietary changes over short periods of time as have occurred over the past 100–150 years is a totally new phenomenon in human evolution (Figure 1). A balance between the omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids is a physiological state that is less inflammatory in terms of gene expression [53], prostaglandin and leukotriene metabolism, and interleukin-1 (IL-1) production [3].

    Modern agriculture, by changing animal feeds as a result of its emphasis on production, has decreased the omega-3 fatty acid content in many foods: animal meats, eggs, and even fish [39,40,41,42]. Foods from edible wild plants contain a good balance of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids. Purslane, a wild plant, in comparison to spinach, red leaf lettuce, buttercrunch lettuce and mustard greens, has eight times more ALA than the cultivated plants [46]. Modern aquaculture produces fish that contain less omega-3 fatty acids than do fish grown naturally in the ocean, rivers and lakes [41]. The fatty acid composition of egg yolk from free-ranging chicken has an omega-6:omega-3 ratio of 1.3 whereas the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) egg has a ratio of 19.9 [42]. By enriching the chicken feed with fishmeal or flaxseed, the ratio of omega-6:omega-3 decreased to 6.6 and 1.6 respectively.

    •Human beings evolved on a diet that was balanced in the omega-6 and omega-3 essential fatty acids.

    •A high omega-6 fatty acid intake and a high omega-6/omega-3 ratio are associated with weight gain in both animal and human studies, whereas a high omega-3 fatty acid intake decreases the risk for weight gain. Lowering the LA/ALA ratio in animals prevents overweight and obesity.

    A balanced omega-6/omega-3 ratio 1–2/1 is one of the most important dietary factors in the prevention of obesity, along with physical activity. A lower omega-6/omega-3 ratio should be considered in the management of obesity."
This discussion has been closed.

Categories