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.

which is the best diet for overall health and weight loss

Options
1…1819202123

Replies

  • ladyhusker39
    ladyhusker39 Posts: 1,406 Member
    Options
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    nooshi713 wrote: »
    For weight loss, whatever a person can stick to and meet their calorie goals.

    For health, I am a fan of the Mediterranean and nordic ways of eating. I love the emphasis on fresh seasonal fruits and veggies, seafood and other lean protein, and inclusion of whole grains and dairy. I feel that keto and other low carb diets do not include enough fruits and vegetables for optimal health.

    How much fruit and veg is required for optimal health (peer reviewed studies if you have them)?


    It's an opinion and clearly stated as such. Proof is not necessary.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2

    As I am not advocating eating just meat as a diet, my question was:

    Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of fruit or veg?

    Fruits and vegetables have varying amounts of micronutrients, but if you take broccoli (often recognized as nutrient-rich) as an example, no. You wouldn't get "optimal" micronutrients from 100 grams of broccoli. The context of the rest of the diet would be important, but if you're counting on 100 grams of broccoli to give you what you need, you're going to be in trouble.

    100g of broccoli is 7g of cArbs! Could I get my micro nutritional requirements from the 33 - 93g of carbs from other fruit and veg ?

    Are you asking about eating 40 -100 grams of carbohydrates per day? Because your question was about eating 40-100 grams of fruit or vegetables.

    Sorry I wasn’t literal enough.40. - 100g of carbs ( general range for LCHF) from fruit and veg .

    You asked about 40-100 g of vegetables/fruits, that's not just a matter of not being "literal" enough; you apparently meant something entirely different from what you said.

    My view is that sure, if someone wanted to, they could get sufficient fruit/veg (it would be mostly veg) on 40-100 g net carbs, although it would likely require a bit more attention than eating a nutrition focused but less low carb diet. There's nothing wrong with that; a vegan diet requires more attention (and some supplementation) to meet all nutrients, and yet can be as healthy as any diet.

    I found myself cutting back on vegetables/worried about type of veg, and not really able to get in fruit (I did eat some nuts and some greek yogurt, which added carbs, both of which I think are healthy and the nuts I consider important), when eating around 35 g net carbs/60-65 g total carbs, and I think my diet was healthy and more than adequate for micronutrients, although I don't like the idea of avoiding fruit to the extent I had to. IMO, there are more benefits from foods such as fruits and veg and other whole foods that tend to be eaten in most blue zone diets and seem to correlate with positive effects than we have actually identified. The UK's recent promotion of 10+ servings of veg/fruit is based on such correlations, although I'd agree that it could be due to other causes (the types of people who eat such diets would have other good habits, the produce would displace other foods).

    That aside, IMO, you can get enough veg on a keto diet if you make an effort and use most of your carbs for veg and don't feel compelled to cut carbs as low as is sometimes promoted (20 g total carbs, or even 40 g total carbs isn't something I'd be comfortable with).
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2

    As I am not advocating eating just meat as a diet, my question was:

    Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of fruit or veg?

    Fruits and vegetables have varying amounts of micronutrients, but if you take broccoli (often recognized as nutrient-rich) as an example, no. You wouldn't get "optimal" micronutrients from 100 grams of broccoli. The context of the rest of the diet would be important, but if you're counting on 100 grams of broccoli to give you what you need, you're going to be in trouble.

    100g of broccoli is 7g of cArbs! Could I get my micro nutritional requirements from the 33 - 93g of carbs from other fruit and veg ?

    Are you asking about eating 40 -100 grams of carbohydrates per day? Because your question was about eating 40-100 grams of fruit or vegetables.

    Sorry I wasn’t literal enough.40. - 100g of carbs ( general range for LCHF) from fruit and veg .

    You asked about 40-100 g of vegetables/fruits, that's not just a matter of not being "literal" enough; you apparently meant something entirely different from what you said.

    My view is that sure, if someone wanted to, they could get sufficient fruit/veg (it would be mostly veg) on 40-100 g net carbs, although it would likely require a bit more attention than eating a nutrition focused but less low carb diet. There's nothing wrong with that; a vegan diet requires more attention (and some supplementation) to meet all nutrients, and yet can be as healthy as any diet.

    I found myself cutting back on vegetables/worried about type of veg, and not really able to get in fruit (I did eat some nuts and some greek yogurt, which added carbs, both of which I think are healthy and the nuts I consider important), when eating around 35 g net carbs/60-65 g total carbs, and I think my diet was healthy and more than adequate for micronutrients, although I don't like the idea of avoiding fruit to the extent I had to. IMO, there are more benefits from foods such as fruits and veg and other whole foods that tend to be eaten in most blue zone diets and seem to correlate with positive effects than we have actually identified. The UK's recent promotion of 10+ servings of veg/fruit is based on such correlations, although I'd agree that it could be due to other causes (the types of people who eat such diets would have other good habits, the produce would displace other foods).

    That aside, IMO, you can get enough veg on a keto diet if you make an effort and use most of your carbs for veg and don't feel compelled to cut carbs as low as is sometimes promoted (20 g total carbs, or even 40 g total carbs isn't something I'd be comfortable with).

    It was off the back of a conversation about low carb not allowing for optimal nutrition.

    I think it a little disingenuous to suggest that you thought I was talking only 7g of carbs, but hey MFP has been like that for years.

    I doubt most on a SAD diet get 40 - 100g (of carbs) from fruit and veg.

    I've popped in and out of this thread, and saw solely the post in question without going back to read the rest, so no, not disingenuous. I thought you were suggesting that 40-100 g of carbs was sufficient. Clearly I was not the only one with that impression. Is it that hard to acknowledge that you mis-typed and not try to blame the reader for going with what you actually wrote?

    I doubt most on a keto diet get 40-100 g of carbs from fruit and veg (most on a keto diet aim for under 20 g net of carbs, IME, and don't get most of them from fruit and veg), but like I said I think it's possible to eat sufficient veg for health on keto, and I think I did when I was experimenting with keto, although I eat far more fruits and veg when not trying to do keto.

    I don't know what the so-called SAD has to do with it, as we are talking about efforts to eat healthfully, no?

    I was suggesting 40-100g of carbs was sufficient, you didn’t misunderstand it; that’s what I meant!

    I’m currently eating under 60g of carbs at the moment and pretty much all of my carbs are coming from a whole range of vegetables.

    In fact I probably eat more vegetables when I am eating a LCHF diet than when I switch to a more varied diet. Seldom can I eat intuitively and remain in a calorie deficit when on a varied diet!


    Oh, sorry, now I mistyped. From the post I picked up on, I thought you were suggesting that 40-100 g of veg (which IMO is way too little) was sufficient. As noted, I think 40-100 g of net carbs can easily be sufficient too, if one uses them wisely. Less certain about 40 g of total carbs, and I think any very low carb diet requires more vigilance, but so do some other restricted but healthy diets.

    I don't think any one kind of diet (keto, vegan, Med, so on) is "optimal," but I think most can be done in healthy and not healthy ways, so if one is drawn to keto for various reasons I think it can be done in a very healthy way. I just don't think keto is on its own healthier than other diets (and certain things about it can make it more challenging to get in adequate micros, IMO). But if you are switching from a diet where you cared nothing about nutrition to one where you are nutrition-focused and also keto, sure, it's going to be healthier, but the reason ISN'T that keto is "optimal" (I don't believe in one optimal diet, although I think there are certain things healthy diets share) or even that it's inherently a healthy change. I tried keto after eating a healthy calorie-appropriate diet for quite a while, and while I thought it was healthy, the way I did it, I didn't think my diet had improved (indeed, I thought it was probably a little less healthy, but still perfectly fine).

    I find the idea that one eats more veg on a keto diet weird, because what's stopping you from eating all the same veg (and more if you want) on a diet with more carbs? I eat more veg when not eating keto, and like I said when doing keto -- 35 g net, 60-65 g total -- I was getting all carbs from about a serving a nuts, occasional greek yogurt (plain), avocado, and veg. I didn't think the amount of veg I was eating was too little for health, no. I did find it to be less than I wanted and I missed being able to eat fruit and being able to rely on beans and lentils and the like as a protein option. (I also missed potatoes, sweet potatoes, and pasta, but those I can take or leave. I do find that including them in my diet doesn't cause me to eat less "optimally.")
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2

    As I am not advocating eating just meat as a diet, my question was:

    Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of fruit or veg?

    Fruits and vegetables have varying amounts of micronutrients, but if you take broccoli (often recognized as nutrient-rich) as an example, no. You wouldn't get "optimal" micronutrients from 100 grams of broccoli. The context of the rest of the diet would be important, but if you're counting on 100 grams of broccoli to give you what you need, you're going to be in trouble.

    100g of broccoli is 7g of cArbs! Could I get my micro nutritional requirements from the 33 - 93g of carbs from other fruit and veg ?

    Are you asking about eating 40 -100 grams of carbohydrates per day? Because your question was about eating 40-100 grams of fruit or vegetables.

    Sorry I wasn’t literal enough.40. - 100g of carbs ( general range for LCHF) from fruit and veg .

    You asked about 40-100 g of vegetables/fruits, that's not just a matter of not being "literal" enough; you apparently meant something entirely different from what you said.

    My view is that sure, if someone wanted to, they could get sufficient fruit/veg (it would be mostly veg) on 40-100 g net carbs, although it would likely require a bit more attention than eating a nutrition focused but less low carb diet. There's nothing wrong with that; a vegan diet requires more attention (and some supplementation) to meet all nutrients, and yet can be as healthy as any diet.

    I found myself cutting back on vegetables/worried about type of veg, and not really able to get in fruit (I did eat some nuts and some greek yogurt, which added carbs, both of which I think are healthy and the nuts I consider important), when eating around 35 g net carbs/60-65 g total carbs, and I think my diet was healthy and more than adequate for micronutrients, although I don't like the idea of avoiding fruit to the extent I had to. IMO, there are more benefits from foods such as fruits and veg and other whole foods that tend to be eaten in most blue zone diets and seem to correlate with positive effects than we have actually identified. The UK's recent promotion of 10+ servings of veg/fruit is based on such correlations, although I'd agree that it could be due to other causes (the types of people who eat such diets would have other good habits, the produce would displace other foods).

    That aside, IMO, you can get enough veg on a keto diet if you make an effort and use most of your carbs for veg and don't feel compelled to cut carbs as low as is sometimes promoted (20 g total carbs, or even 40 g total carbs isn't something I'd be comfortable with).

    It was off the back of a conversation about low carb not allowing for optimal nutrition.

    I think it a little disingenuous to suggest that you thought I was talking only 7g of carbs, but hey MFP has been like that for years.

    I doubt most on a SAD diet get 40 - 100g (of carbs) from fruit and veg.

    I've popped in and out of this thread, and saw solely the post in question without going back to read the rest, so no, not disingenuous. I thought you were suggesting that 40-100 g of carbs was sufficient. Clearly I was not the only one with that impression. Is it that hard to acknowledge that you mis-typed and not try to blame the reader for going with what you actually wrote?

    I doubt most on a keto diet get 40-100 g of carbs from fruit and veg (most on a keto diet aim for under 20 g net of carbs, IME, and don't get most of them from fruit and veg), but like I said I think it's possible to eat sufficient veg for health on keto, and I think I did when I was experimenting with keto, although I eat far more fruits and veg when not trying to do keto.

    I don't know what the so-called SAD has to do with it, as we are talking about efforts to eat healthfully, no?

    I was suggesting 40-100g of carbs was sufficient, you didn’t misunderstand it; that’s what I meant!

    I’m currently eating under 60g of carbs at the moment and pretty much all of my carbs are coming from a whole range of vegetables.

    In fact I probably eat more vegetables when I am eating a LCHF diet than when I switch to a more varied diet. Seldom can I eat intuitively and remain in a calorie deficit when on a varied diet!


    Oh, sorry, now I mistyped. From the post I picked up on, I thought you were suggesting that 40-100 g of veg (which IMO is way too little) was sufficient. As noted, I think 40-100 g of net carbs can easily be sufficient too, if one uses them wisely. Less certain about 40 g of total carbs, and I think any very low carb diet requires more vigilance, but so do some other restricted but healthy diets.

    I don't think any one kind of diet (keto, vegan, Med, so on) is "optimal," but I think most can be done in healthy and not healthy ways, so if one is drawn to keto for various reasons I think it can be done in a very healthy way. I just don't think keto is on its own healthier than other diets (and certain things about it can make it more challenging to get in adequate micros, IMO). But if you are switching from a diet where you cared nothing about nutrition to one where you are nutrition-focused and also keto, sure, it's going to be healthier, but the reason ISN'T that keto is "optimal" (I don't believe in one optimal diet, although I think there are certain things healthy diets share) or even that it's inherently a healthy change. I tried keto after eating a healthy calorie-appropriate diet for quite a while, and while I thought it was healthy, the way I did it, I didn't think my diet had improved (indeed, I thought it was probably a little less healthy, but still perfectly fine).

    I find the idea that one eats more veg on a keto diet weird, because what's stopping you from eating all the same veg (and more if you want) on a diet with more carbs? I eat more veg when not eating keto, and like I said when doing keto -- 35 g net, 60-65 g total -- I was getting all carbs from about a serving a nuts, occasional greek yogurt (plain), avocado, and veg. I didn't think the amount of veg I was eating was too little for health, no. I did find it to be less than I wanted and I missed being able to eat fruit and being able to rely on beans and lentils and the like as a protein option. (I also missed potatoes, sweet potatoes, and pasta, but those I can take or leave. I do find that including them in my diet doesn't cause me to eat less "optimally.")

    It certainly is easy to mis-type stuff and get misunderstood on here. ;)

    I agree keto or LCHF is no healthier than any other type of healthy diet. They all have their pros & cons.

    Regards weird that one eats more veg on a LCHF diet than a higher carb diet, I can only speak from my own personal experience and that is how it is for me. I certainly get a lot more varied selection of veg on a LCHF diet. In the last 2 days I have eaten a good portion of Courgettes, lettuce, carrots, peppers, onion, mushrooms, broccoli (of course), cauliflower & beetroot.

    I generally wouldn't eat anywhere near that amount of veg if I were not on LCHF, but I suppose all that proves is we are all different and one size does not fit all. :)
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Regular meat is going to miss quite some nutrients. Unless you can afford and eat multiple pounds of sirloin a day.
    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3794/2

    As I am not advocating eating just meat as a diet, my question was:

    Could I get optimal micro nutrients from 40 - 100g of fruit or veg?

    Fruits and vegetables have varying amounts of micronutrients, but if you take broccoli (often recognized as nutrient-rich) as an example, no. You wouldn't get "optimal" micronutrients from 100 grams of broccoli. The context of the rest of the diet would be important, but if you're counting on 100 grams of broccoli to give you what you need, you're going to be in trouble.

    100g of broccoli is 7g of cArbs! Could I get my micro nutritional requirements from the 33 - 93g of carbs from other fruit and veg ?

    Are you asking about eating 40 -100 grams of carbohydrates per day? Because your question was about eating 40-100 grams of fruit or vegetables.

    Sorry I wasn’t literal enough.40. - 100g of carbs ( general range for LCHF) from fruit and veg .

    You asked about 40-100 g of vegetables/fruits, that's not just a matter of not being "literal" enough; you apparently meant something entirely different from what you said.

    My view is that sure, if someone wanted to, they could get sufficient fruit/veg (it would be mostly veg) on 40-100 g net carbs, although it would likely require a bit more attention than eating a nutrition focused but less low carb diet. There's nothing wrong with that; a vegan diet requires more attention (and some supplementation) to meet all nutrients, and yet can be as healthy as any diet.

    I found myself cutting back on vegetables/worried about type of veg, and not really able to get in fruit (I did eat some nuts and some greek yogurt, which added carbs, both of which I think are healthy and the nuts I consider important), when eating around 35 g net carbs/60-65 g total carbs, and I think my diet was healthy and more than adequate for micronutrients, although I don't like the idea of avoiding fruit to the extent I had to. IMO, there are more benefits from foods such as fruits and veg and other whole foods that tend to be eaten in most blue zone diets and seem to correlate with positive effects than we have actually identified. The UK's recent promotion of 10+ servings of veg/fruit is based on such correlations, although I'd agree that it could be due to other causes (the types of people who eat such diets would have other good habits, the produce would displace other foods).

    That aside, IMO, you can get enough veg on a keto diet if you make an effort and use most of your carbs for veg and don't feel compelled to cut carbs as low as is sometimes promoted (20 g total carbs, or even 40 g total carbs isn't something I'd be comfortable with).

    It was off the back of a conversation about low carb not allowing for optimal nutrition.

    I think it a little disingenuous to suggest that you thought I was talking only 7g of carbs, but hey MFP has been like that for years.

    I doubt most on a SAD diet get 40 - 100g (of carbs) from fruit and veg.

    I've popped in and out of this thread, and saw solely the post in question without going back to read the rest, so no, not disingenuous. I thought you were suggesting that 40-100 g of carbs was sufficient. Clearly I was not the only one with that impression. Is it that hard to acknowledge that you mis-typed and not try to blame the reader for going with what you actually wrote?

    I doubt most on a keto diet get 40-100 g of carbs from fruit and veg (most on a keto diet aim for under 20 g net of carbs, IME, and don't get most of them from fruit and veg), but like I said I think it's possible to eat sufficient veg for health on keto, and I think I did when I was experimenting with keto, although I eat far more fruits and veg when not trying to do keto.

    I don't know what the so-called SAD has to do with it, as we are talking about efforts to eat healthfully, no?

    I was suggesting 40-100g of carbs was sufficient, you didn’t misunderstand it; that’s what I meant!

    I’m currently eating under 60g of carbs at the moment and pretty much all of my carbs are coming from a whole range of vegetables.

    In fact I probably eat more vegetables when I am eating a LCHF diet than when I switch to a more varied diet. Seldom can I eat intuitively and remain in a calorie deficit when on a varied diet!


    Oh, sorry, now I mistyped. From the post I picked up on, I thought you were suggesting that 40-100 g of veg (which IMO is way too little) was sufficient. As noted, I think 40-100 g of net carbs can easily be sufficient too, if one uses them wisely. Less certain about 40 g of total carbs, and I think any very low carb diet requires more vigilance, but so do some other restricted but healthy diets.

    I don't think any one kind of diet (keto, vegan, Med, so on) is "optimal," but I think most can be done in healthy and not healthy ways, so if one is drawn to keto for various reasons I think it can be done in a very healthy way. I just don't think keto is on its own healthier than other diets (and certain things about it can make it more challenging to get in adequate micros, IMO). But if you are switching from a diet where you cared nothing about nutrition to one where you are nutrition-focused and also keto, sure, it's going to be healthier, but the reason ISN'T that keto is "optimal" (I don't believe in one optimal diet, although I think there are certain things healthy diets share) or even that it's inherently a healthy change. I tried keto after eating a healthy calorie-appropriate diet for quite a while, and while I thought it was healthy, the way I did it, I didn't think my diet had improved (indeed, I thought it was probably a little less healthy, but still perfectly fine).

    I find the idea that one eats more veg on a keto diet weird, because what's stopping you from eating all the same veg (and more if you want) on a diet with more carbs? I eat more veg when not eating keto, and like I said when doing keto -- 35 g net, 60-65 g total -- I was getting all carbs from about a serving a nuts, occasional greek yogurt (plain), avocado, and veg. I didn't think the amount of veg I was eating was too little for health, no. I did find it to be less than I wanted and I missed being able to eat fruit and being able to rely on beans and lentils and the like as a protein option. (I also missed potatoes, sweet potatoes, and pasta, but those I can take or leave. I do find that including them in my diet doesn't cause me to eat less "optimally.")

    It certainly is easy to mis-type stuff and get misunderstood on here. ;)

    I agree keto or LCHF is no healthier than any other type of healthy diet. They all have their pros & cons.

    Regards weird that one eats more veg on a LCHF diet than a higher carb diet, I can only speak from my own personal experience and that is how it is for me. I certainly get a lot more varied selection of veg on a LCHF diet. In the last 2 days I have eaten a good portion of Courgettes, lettuce, carrots, peppers, onion, mushrooms, broccoli (of course), cauliflower & beetroot.

    I generally wouldn't eat anywhere near that amount of veg if I were not on LCHF, but I suppose all that proves is we are all different and one size does not fit all. :)

    Yeah, this is what makes no sense to me, assuming, of course, that you are someone who cares about vegetables.

    For me, vegetables are tasty and very important, so I try to have them (ideally a significant amount of them, and a variety of different kinds) at all meals. I don't know why that would be harder to do or something you wouldn't do )(if you cared about it) if not eating LCHF.

    What I found when trying out keto was that my initial plan of cutting out non veg carbs other than nuts and occasional greek yogurt was that even my usual amount of veg was often taking me over my goal, so I consciously ate a bit less (but still, IMO, plenty for health purposes).

    I guess if you didn't prioritize veg naturally and switched to keto you might find yourself subbing veg for sides like rice and pasta, but for me -- and as I was brought up (eating what we thought of as a basic American diet) -- meals normally had vegetables, protein, and a starch course (although I often do fruit as a sub for a starch), so cutting out the starch course didn't cause me to sub in more veg, but instead more fat -- as like I said I was always at my carb goal or over when doing keto and needed more fat.

    To me protein and vegetables are the non negotiable no matter how I eat, although the types of veg (no beans if eating keto) and the type of protein (more meat when doing keto, less meat in my preferred style of eating, no animal products if doing plant based, which I did for Lent and have tried in the past) vary. I also consider nuts and seeds and sources of omega 3s (ideally including fatty fish) important, and fruit somewhat important. Beyond that I prefer -- and find optimal for me -- eating based on what's locally in season and available when possible, and get a farm box, and like to garden, so having to be picky about the type of veg or avoiding fruit (especially what's locally available and delicious here in the summer) or avoiding fall and early winter staples like potatoes and sweet potatoes and maybe too much winter squash or root veg of all kinds is contrary to what works best for me and seems healthiest for me.

    NOT saying this is all the same for everyone, I agree with you that one size does not fit all.

    I think you nailed it, I am not a big veg fan.

    But when I am eating in a LCHF model I eat lots of salady stuff or casseroles or meat (fav food) based meals where veg is naturally included or a good accompaniment to the meal.

    Other people I know who eat LCHF seem to do the same quite often. I'm not saying that is the same for everyone, but to me it seems to make sense.

    The LCHF forums and sites I frequent are very pro-veg and fruit (generally lower sugar fruits like berries).



  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    I would agree that those pushing LCHF as a healthy way to eat often promote eating lots of veg, whole foods, higher quality meats, and other things I'd agree with, but of course you don't have to do LCHF like that, and I think it's in conflict with some of the more popular sites that seem to push doing less than 20 g carbs or the idea that always lower (less than 20 g total) is better. As well as some people (Jimmy Moore springs to mind) who actually recommend keeping protein on what I'd consider the lower end.

    Bigger point -- since we agree that LFHC can be done very healthfully and may be an easier or more sustainable way to eat for some, but not others (since that matters) -- is that if you are comparing I think you should compare diets where people are trying to eat healthfully. I'd say a diet where you aren't watching carbs but ARE trying to eat healthfully WOULD include veg at most meals on average (unless you were someone with a pattern where you just ate a ton of veg at one meal or included them as snacks). For some people, maybe making those healthier choices are easier when doing very low carb, since they are limiting their options and would still want some variety. I have never found it hard to include veg when eating at any carb level, so for me that seems odd, but I get that for some that may happen, I still think it's wrong to claim LCHF is more of a vegetable-oriented diet. I'd instead say that any healthy pattern of eating will prioritize vegetables, and LCHF can do this, as other diets can too.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    In general I agree. Everything apart from your disagreement of me claiming that LCHF is more of a vegetable-oriented diet. All I am claiming is that the carb aspect of the diet tends to be more veg oriented and that is only a claim based on my own personal experience and other low carb forums and sites I follow. I cannot speak for the millions of other people that find success on a LCHF diet model.
  • Grimmerick
    Grimmerick Posts: 3,344 Member
    edited May 2018
    Options
    Irishman1970 wrote: »
    Bottom line people the sugar industry has paid the right people to convince you fat is bad - why - because there is ALOT of money to be made form producing sugar - but like I said feel free to fill your diet with sugar all you want

    Did you watch Sugarcoated?
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    In general I agree. Everything apart from your disagreement of me claiming that LCHF is more of a vegetable-oriented diet. All I am claiming is that the carb aspect of the diet tends to be more veg oriented and that is only a claim based on my own personal experience and other low carb forums and sites I follow. I cannot speak for the millions of other people that find success on a LCHF diet model.

    I think you are right in that most low carbers tend to use vegetables as their main carb source. If one tries to keep refined carbs in the diet, your portion sizes decrease dramatically, not to mention fibre decreases.

    Some make LCHF a plant oriented diet, and I agree that it is not all of us. I would say just as many make their diet animal based, with the same health benefits as plant based.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    :)
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    In general I agree. Everything apart from your disagreement of me claiming that LCHF is more of a vegetable-oriented diet. All I am claiming is that the carb aspect of the diet tends to be more veg oriented and that is only a claim based on my own personal experience and other low carb forums and sites I follow. I cannot speak for the millions of other people that find success on a LCHF diet model.

    I think you are right in that most low carbers tend to use vegetables as their main carb source. If one tries to keep refined carbs in the diet, your portion sizes decrease dramatically, not to mention fibre decreases.

    Some make LCHF a plant oriented diet, and I agree that it is not all of us. I would say just as many make their diet animal based, with the same health benefits as plant based.

    Agreed, I’m animal based all the way.

  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    :)
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    In general I agree. Everything apart from your disagreement of me claiming that LCHF is more of a vegetable-oriented diet. All I am claiming is that the carb aspect of the diet tends to be more veg oriented and that is only a claim based on my own personal experience and other low carb forums and sites I follow. I cannot speak for the millions of other people that find success on a LCHF diet model.

    I think you are right in that most low carbers tend to use vegetables as their main carb source. If one tries to keep refined carbs in the diet, your portion sizes decrease dramatically, not to mention fibre decreases.

    Some make LCHF a plant oriented diet, and I agree that it is not all of us. I would say just as many make their diet animal based, with the same health benefits as plant based.

    Agreed, I’m animal based all the way.

    "Plant based diet" seems to be the buzz phrase lately. It has that same superior feel to it (for me) that some say they feel when people discuss clean eating or paleo or whatever.

    I feel that when some say plant based diet, that it is implied to be the healthiest or ideal diet. Almost like a pat on the back is expected (again, just my perception).

    I'm not saying that a plant based diet can't be healthy, or that it does not correlate with good nutrition in some healthy cultures, but I dislike the trend towards encouraging more plants and less animal products for everyone... The thinking behind that food pyramid from the 90s just won't die.

    For some reason it is still implied that plant based nutrition trumps animal based nutrition at all times. :confused:
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    "Plant-based diet" to me is just a way of saying "vegan" that doesn't imply it's being done from ethical considerations or require no longer wearing leather. It doesn't even mean you are eating particularly healthfully, although it usually does tend to correlate with more of a focus on nutrition and health than merely being vegan (as that again may have to do with nothing but concern about animals). (But it's also a common religious discipline -- not so common in the US as eating "no meat but fish," of course -- and for that I wouldn't think it means you are focusing on eating super healthfully.)

    I don't think a plant-based diet is the healthiest or ideal diet (because as mentioned above I don't think such a diet exists, there are many healthy diets and the best is the one that is sustainable and non stressful and enjoyable, and also other lifestyle considerations are probably more important once you have a not terrible diet and a calorie appropriate one).

    That said, I do think eating "mostly plants" is probably healthier than not (I personally would not call that a "plant-based diet"), that eating a significant amount of non-starchy veg and some fruit correlates with positive health outcomes, and that after a point more meat in a diet (especially more high fat or processed meat, like bacon and sausage) tends to have a negative correlation. But that governs my own preferences and way of eating, I don't go around telling people who eat lots of meat (common in the US) that it's bad for them or that they should reduce meat consumption. In fact, I think probably if your diet is otherwise healthful (I'd think eating a good amount of non starchy veg also, and not a ton of low nutrient foods that would crowd out other sources of calories) and you are not overweight and active, that it's probably not even much of a difference. I think for some eating more meat may make those other things easier to achieve.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    "Plant-based diet" to me is just a way of saying "vegan" that doesn't imply it's being done from ethical considerations or require no longer wearing leather. It doesn't even mean you are eating particularly healthfully, although it usually does tend to correlate with more of a focus on nutrition and health than merely being vegan (as that again may have to do with nothing but concern about animals). (But it's also a common religious discipline -- not so common in the US as eating "no meat but fish," of course -- and for that I wouldn't think it means you are focusing on eating super healthfully.)

    I don't think a plant-based diet is the healthiest or ideal diet (because as mentioned above I don't think such a diet exists, there are many healthy diets and the best is the one that is sustainable and non stressful and enjoyable, and also other lifestyle considerations are probably more important once you have a not terrible diet and a calorie appropriate one).

    That said, I do think eating "mostly plants" is probably healthier than not (I personally would not call that a "plant-based diet"), that eating a significant amount of non-starchy veg and some fruit correlates with positive health outcomes, and that after a point more meat in a diet (especially more high fat or processed meat, like bacon and sausage) tends to have a negative correlation. But that governs my own preferences and way of eating, I don't go around telling people who eat lots of meat (common in the US) that it's bad for them or that they should reduce meat consumption. In fact, I think probably if your diet is otherwise healthful (I'd think eating a good amount of non starchy veg also, and not a ton of low nutrient foods that would crowd out other sources of calories) and you are not overweight and active, that it's probably not even much of a difference. I think for some eating more meat may make those other things easier to achieve.

    So true. I completely agree with the bolded. :) And that starchy or refined foods can crowd out the veg - hat is likely where low carbers who have increased their veg intake are coming from.

    As an aside on terminology, I've always thought plant based meant it was a mostly plant diet: not having meat at every meal or the focus of all meals. I think of animal based as animal products being the basis for most meals like bacon and eggs, or a big steak with a side salad... In my mind, plant based might be a small steak cut up on a salad, plus a bun or potato. Or a vegetarian chili with a bit of cheese, whereas the animal based one would remove the beans, keep some of the celery or peppers, and (of course) add cheese on top. ;)

Categories