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.
It's official. MFP says "Eating carbs in moderation may help you live longer"
Options
Replies
-
I'm not even arguing low carb vs moderate carb vs high carb... I'm arguing that the study is completely flawed and meaningless. Go read the study - they did 2 food questionairres across a 20-30 year period and did not cover the last 10-15 years for the people included in the study. Based on those 2 forms they assumed that people ate the exact same way for their entire lives - this is problem 1 with the study. The second major problem is that they did not account for outside life factors that could have greatly influenced the results of the study. Any conclusions that they could draw are highly suspect.
The article derives from 7 studies.6 -
I'm not even arguing low carb vs moderate carb vs high carb... I'm arguing that the study is completely flawed and meaningless. Go read the study - they did 2 food questionairres across a 20-30 year period and did not cover the last 10-15 years for the people included in the study. Based on those 2 forms they assumed that people ate the exact same way for their entire lives - this is problem 1 with the study. The second major problem is that they did not account for outside life factors that could have greatly influenced the results of the study. Any conclusions that they could draw are highly suspect.
The article derives from 7 studies.
Perhaps a more appropriate comment would be the article cherry picks from 7 studies that the author who apparently doesn't have PhD or Registered Dietitian after her name chose.
Personally I believe there is middle ground and carbs are important. Carbs like fruits, veggies, whole grains. Very moderate to limited consumption of carbs loaded with added sugar and/or married with a lot of fat.
I'm personally on the lower end of the 45-65% of calories from carbs the mentioned in the article as the government recommendation.7 -
A very low carber's response
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/201809/latest-low-carb-study-all-politics-no-science
That article has created little response among low carbers that I have seen. A common response seems to be "whatever". It's just not very believable to the long term low carbers (which is under 100-150g, usually well below a third of all calories) who stick with the diet because of the health benefits they are experiencing. It's like being told that you may feel way better now, and your health may have improved (for now), but low carb will kill you in the end... Yeah, right. That makes sense.
Low carber zealots ignoring facts is business as usual, yes.It's just more old and inaccurate epidemiological studies being recycled to protect the dying dogma that low fat is best for all. IMO
Sorry, but you're fighting a straw man.
Nowhere does it say "low fat is best for all".
You'd like that to be true so it looks like you've rebutted something, but you haven't.
So most low carbers are zealots?
It's a very weak conclusion that is being presented. I think those who follow lchf science not bothering to comment much on this is more due to the fact that it has already been shown to be too weak to bother with. Why flog the dead horse?
As to my low fat comment, if one is getting most of their calories from carbs - they recommend higher carb of 45-65% ( odd because they also recommend moderation in everything) - and eating moderate protein, then fat is going to be on the low side. They call carbs low if under 35%, so I'll assume a similar standard applies for fat. For example, if one is eating 60% carbs and only 20% protein, that only leaves 20% for fat. If you ate 50% carbs, 30% protein, that too only leaves 20% for fat; if you lowered protein fat would be closer to moderate but that might not be the best idea.
I always considered moderation in everything to be more like a zone diet where all macros are between 30-40%.
11 -
happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »"This study says reducing carbs to 35% of your calories is bad for your health but my diet is 10% carbs so I reached the magic zone probably."
I cannot understand the 'not extreme enough' criticism low carbers always have for studies they don't agree with.
I think it's possibly because 35% is not technically low carb for many. 35% of a 2000 kcal diet is 700 kcal or 175g of carbs - not really low carb. 35% is 25% more than 10% (which may be ketogenic). It's like comparing 35% carbs to 60% carbs - those diets will look pretty different and may have very different effects on your health or metabolism.
It's incredibly silly and speculative to say that there is a threshold for low carb that creates magic health effects not observable at 'higher' low carb diets. Of course it's possible but the burden of proof falls on the positive hypothesis not the null.
No one said magic. And that is just your opinion.
Why wouldn't going well below moderate carb (or moderately low carb) affect your health or metabolism? Why is it silly? If one has BG, IR, or health issues exacerbated by higher carbs (such as some with T2D, prediabetes, NAFLD, PCOS dementia, brain injury, epilepsy, CVD, some cancers experience) then going lower than moderate carb (or even moderately low carb) may help those people even more.
I noticed many benefits to my health going from moderate carb to 100g, then to 20g carbs, and again when I dropped my carbs more. It's just my n=1, but in my situation it made complete sense to lower carbs a great deal. I know I'm not a special snowflake and that there are others who experienced noticeable benefits when dropping carbs from moderate levels down to 20-50g.
There are some medical indications for low carb diets. No one is saying otherwise. I'm saying that 'not low carb enough' does not make sense as a critism of this study, that focused on a general population. This study found that in a general population, low carb decreases life span. You are saying that your improvement on low carb increased as you decreased carbs, not that your health got worse and then better once you were very low carb which again, is what this particular critism implies would happen. It doesn't make sense to say that the researchers would have seen the exact opposite of what they found if they studied only very low carb or keto.
Also, in science, you prove positive statements. It's basically impossible to completely disprove negative statements as you are asking me to do here so the negative statement is assumed to be correct until proven otherwise. If vlc dieters believe that keto produces positive health outcomes even though moderate low carb may decrease lifespan, they need to produce that evidence.
Not low carb enough seems credible to me because 35% carbs may well be moderate carb. At 35% carbs, it could well be moderate carbers die may sooner (according to their interpretation). They haven't looked at low carb at all - they are just guessing that lower carb makes things worse without any evidence.
I'm not trying to line up my experience (the lower carb = better health for me) with what this article claims. I think it's bunk, right down to how they define low carb.
I've always thought that science is more about seeing if you can disprove a hypothesis... but they haven't proven (or disproven) anything about low carb, or very low carb, one way or another.
Seems credible based on what evidence other than your n=1 experience and that of others you've talked to or are familiar with? What studies or other form of actual evidence back up this seeming credible?4 -
happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »"This study says reducing carbs to 35% of your calories is bad for your health but my diet is 10% carbs so I reached the magic zone probably."
I cannot understand the 'not extreme enough' criticism low carbers always have for studies they don't agree with.
I think it's possibly because 35% is not technically low carb for many. 35% of a 2000 kcal diet is 700 kcal or 175g of carbs - not really low carb. 35% is 25% more than 10% (which may be ketogenic). It's like comparing 35% carbs to 60% carbs - those diets will look pretty different and may have very different effects on your health or metabolism.
It's incredibly silly and speculative to say that there is a threshold for low carb that creates magic health effects not observable at 'higher' low carb diets. Of course it's possible but the burden of proof falls on the positive hypothesis not the null.
No one said magic. And that is just your opinion.
Why wouldn't going well below moderate carb (or moderately low carb) affect your health or metabolism? Why is it silly? If one has BG, IR, or health issues exacerbated by higher carbs (such as some with T2D, prediabetes, NAFLD, PCOS dementia, brain injury, epilepsy, CVD, some cancers experience) then going lower than moderate carb (or even moderately low carb) may help those people even more.
I noticed many benefits to my health going from moderate carb to 100g, then to 20g carbs, and again when I dropped my carbs more. It's just my n=1, but in my situation it made complete sense to lower carbs a great deal. I know I'm not a special snowflake and that there are others who experienced noticeable benefits when dropping carbs from moderate levels down to 20-50g.
There are some medical indications for low carb diets. No one is saying otherwise. I'm saying that 'not low carb enough' does not make sense as a critism of this study, that focused on a general population. This study found that in a general population, low carb decreases life span. You are saying that your improvement on low carb increased as you decreased carbs, not that your health got worse and then better once you were very low carb which again, is what this particular critism implies would happen. It doesn't make sense to say that the researchers would have seen the exact opposite of what they found if they studied only very low carb or keto.
Also, in science, you prove positive statements. It's basically impossible to completely disprove negative statements as you are asking me to do here so the negative statement is assumed to be correct until proven otherwise. If vlc dieters believe that keto produces positive health outcomes even though moderate low carb may decrease lifespan, they need to produce that evidence.
Not low carb enough seems credible to me because 35% carbs may well be moderate carb. At 35% carbs, it could well be moderate carbers die may sooner (according to their interpretation). They haven't looked at low carb at all - they are just guessing that lower carb makes things worse without any evidence.
I'm not trying to line up my experience (the lower carb = better health for me) with what this article claims. I think it's bunk, right down to how they define low carb.
I've always thought that science is more about seeing if you can disprove a hypothesis... but they haven't proven (or disproven) anything about low carb, or very low carb, one way or another.
Seems credible based on what evidence other than your n=1 experience and that of others you've talked to or are familiar with? What studies or other form of actual evidence back up this seeming credible?
No, because, as I said, 35% carbs may not be low carb so applying that result to low carb dieters is just guess work. They looked at moderate carb levels and applied their conclusions to all low carb diets.
And if ketones, or very low carb intake, are creating the health benefits that some experience then looking at moderate (or moderately low) carb levels may not show those benefits.
I think the lower limit (45%) of the higher carb diet that they recommend (45-65%, which they call moderate carb) is much closer to the 35% (and higher mortality rate) than a very low carb diet of 5-10% carbs is.
I think there was a lot wrong with their conclusions. Ymmv
5 -
The Lancet research found the risks of premature death were minimized when filling up on complex carbs from fruits, vegetables and whole grains
The important caveat.12 -
happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »"This study says reducing carbs to 35% of your calories is bad for your health but my diet is 10% carbs so I reached the magic zone probably."
I cannot understand the 'not extreme enough' criticism low carbers always have for studies they don't agree with.
I think it's possibly because 35% is not technically low carb for many. 35% of a 2000 kcal diet is 700 kcal or 175g of carbs - not really low carb. 35% is 25% more than 10% (which may be ketogenic). It's like comparing 35% carbs to 60% carbs - those diets will look pretty different and may have very different effects on your health or metabolism.
It's incredibly silly and speculative to say that there is a threshold for low carb that creates magic health effects not observable at 'higher' low carb diets. Of course it's possible but the burden of proof falls on the positive hypothesis not the null.
No one said magic. And that is just your opinion.
Why wouldn't going well below moderate carb (or moderately low carb) affect your health or metabolism? Why is it silly? If one has BG, IR, or health issues exacerbated by higher carbs (such as some with T2D, prediabetes, NAFLD, PCOS dementia, brain injury, epilepsy, CVD, some cancers experience) then going lower than moderate carb (or even moderately low carb) may help those people even more.
I noticed many benefits to my health going from moderate carb to 100g, then to 20g carbs, and again when I dropped my carbs more. It's just my n=1, but in my situation it made complete sense to lower carbs a great deal. I know I'm not a special snowflake and that there are others who experienced noticeable benefits when dropping carbs from moderate levels down to 20-50g.
There are some medical indications for low carb diets. No one is saying otherwise. I'm saying that 'not low carb enough' does not make sense as a critism of this study, that focused on a general population. This study found that in a general population, low carb decreases life span. You are saying that your improvement on low carb increased as you decreased carbs, not that your health got worse and then better once you were very low carb which again, is what this particular critism implies would happen. It doesn't make sense to say that the researchers would have seen the exact opposite of what they found if they studied only very low carb or keto.
Also, in science, you prove positive statements. It's basically impossible to completely disprove negative statements as you are asking me to do here so the negative statement is assumed to be correct until proven otherwise. If vlc dieters believe that keto produces positive health outcomes even though moderate low carb may decrease lifespan, they need to produce that evidence.
Not low carb enough seems credible to me because 35% carbs may well be moderate carb. At 35% carbs, it could well be moderate carbers die may sooner (according to their interpretation). They haven't looked at low carb at all - they are just guessing that lower carb makes things worse without any evidence.
I'm not trying to line up my experience (the lower carb = better health for me) with what this article claims. I think it's bunk, right down to how they define low carb.
I've always thought that science is more about seeing if you can disprove a hypothesis... but they haven't proven (or disproven) anything about low carb, or very low carb, one way or another.
Seems credible based on what evidence other than your n=1 experience and that of others you've talked to or are familiar with? What studies or other form of actual evidence back up this seeming credible?
No, because, as I said, 35% carbs may not be low carb so applying that result to low carb dieters is just guess work. They looked at moderate carb levels and applied their conclusions to all low carb diets.
And if ketones, or very low carb intake, are creating the health benefits that some experience then looking at moderate (or moderately low) carb levels may not show those benefits.
I think the lower limit (45%) of the higher carb diet that they recommend (45-65%, which they call moderate carb) is much closer to the 35% (and higher mortality rate) than a very low carb diet of 5-10% carbs is.
I think there was a lot wrong with their conclusions. Ymmv
Re: the bolded, I perfectly understand why you feel the result of the studies are not indicative of the results of lower carb intakes. I asking specifically if you have any evidence for the seeming credibliity, as you stated, that the results would be more favorable if carbs were lowered. To me, that is a large unkown.
So , again, what evidence do you have that health markers may improve if carbs were lowered to what are considered low carb or keto levels? Why does this seem credible to you? What studies would align with this thinking? Mortality rate data for lower carb diets? Anything??5 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »The Lancet research found the risks of premature death were minimized when filling up on complex carbs from fruits, vegetables and whole grains
The important caveat.
I would like somebody to define "premature death" in actual age/years. Is is dying in the 30s, or 50s, or maybe 70s? And the causation for dying (besides no breathing and the heart no pumping...).
I didn't read that clarification in the article, so if I missed it please point me in the right direction.
2 -
happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »"This study says reducing carbs to 35% of your calories is bad for your health but my diet is 10% carbs so I reached the magic zone probably."
I cannot understand the 'not extreme enough' criticism low carbers always have for studies they don't agree with.
I think it's possibly because 35% is not technically low carb for many. 35% of a 2000 kcal diet is 700 kcal or 175g of carbs - not really low carb. 35% is 25% more than 10% (which may be ketogenic). It's like comparing 35% carbs to 60% carbs - those diets will look pretty different and may have very different effects on your health or metabolism.
It's incredibly silly and speculative to say that there is a threshold for low carb that creates magic health effects not observable at 'higher' low carb diets. Of course it's possible but the burden of proof falls on the positive hypothesis not the null.
No one said magic. And that is just your opinion.
Why wouldn't going well below moderate carb (or moderately low carb) affect your health or metabolism? Why is it silly? If one has BG, IR, or health issues exacerbated by higher carbs (such as some with T2D, prediabetes, NAFLD, PCOS dementia, brain injury, epilepsy, CVD, some cancers experience) then going lower than moderate carb (or even moderately low carb) may help those people even more.
I noticed many benefits to my health going from moderate carb to 100g, then to 20g carbs, and again when I dropped my carbs more. It's just my n=1, but in my situation it made complete sense to lower carbs a great deal. I know I'm not a special snowflake and that there are others who experienced noticeable benefits when dropping carbs from moderate levels down to 20-50g.
There are some medical indications for low carb diets. No one is saying otherwise. I'm saying that 'not low carb enough' does not make sense as a critism of this study, that focused on a general population. This study found that in a general population, low carb decreases life span. You are saying that your improvement on low carb increased as you decreased carbs, not that your health got worse and then better once you were very low carb which again, is what this particular critism implies would happen. It doesn't make sense to say that the researchers would have seen the exact opposite of what they found if they studied only very low carb or keto.
Also, in science, you prove positive statements. It's basically impossible to completely disprove negative statements as you are asking me to do here so the negative statement is assumed to be correct until proven otherwise. If vlc dieters believe that keto produces positive health outcomes even though moderate low carb may decrease lifespan, they need to produce that evidence.
Not low carb enough seems credible to me because 35% carbs may well be moderate carb. At 35% carbs, it could well be moderate carbers die may sooner (according to their interpretation). They haven't looked at low carb at all - they are just guessing that lower carb makes things worse without any evidence.
I'm not trying to line up my experience (the lower carb = better health for me) with what this article claims. I think it's bunk, right down to how they define low carb.
I've always thought that science is more about seeing if you can disprove a hypothesis... but they haven't proven (or disproven) anything about low carb, or very low carb, one way or another.
Seems credible based on what evidence other than your n=1 experience and that of others you've talked to or are familiar with? What studies or other form of actual evidence back up this seeming credible?
No, because, as I said, 35% carbs may not be low carb so applying that result to low carb dieters is just guess work. They looked at moderate carb levels and applied their conclusions to all low carb diets.
And if ketones, or very low carb intake, are creating the health benefits that some experience then looking at moderate (or moderately low) carb levels may not show those benefits.
I think the lower limit (45%) of the higher carb diet that they recommend (45-65%, which they call moderate carb) is much closer to the 35% (and higher mortality rate) than a very low carb diet of 5-10% carbs is.
I think there was a lot wrong with their conclusions. Ymmv
Re: the bolded, I perfectly understand why you feel the result of the studies are not indicative of the results of lower carb intakes. I asking specifically if you have any evidence for the seeming credibliity, as you stated, that the results would be more favorable if carbs were lowered. To me, that is a large unkown.
So , again, what evidence do you have that health markers may improve if carbs were lowered to what are considered low carb or keto levels? Why does this seem credible to you? What studies would align with this thinking? Mortality rate data for lower carb diets? Anything??
I am saying that they are applying moderate carb results (questionable results at that) to low carb diets. Low carb diets weren't tested, therefore claiming that these results apply to low carb are not credible.
I did not provide evidence that low carbers are longer lived, or that health markers improve. I did not say that, so there is no need to provide proof. My health improved with low carb was all that I said. It was an n=1. That does not apply to all low carbers just like a moderate carb study will not apply to all low carbers.
My point is that the conclusions from this study prove nothing. I dont need to provide conflicting evidence to disprove a poor study and its weak conclusions. Proving low carb is best is not what this thread is about. (And before you argue against that sentence, please note that I did not say that low carb is best, but that this thread is not about proving that low carb is best.)12 -
I believe there is a lot of dispute due to misunderstanding biology and terminology. We ought to start with the term carbohydrates (carbs), then move onto their purpose, then which ones are good or bad.
Defining
Carbohydrates: any of a class of organic compounds that are polyhydroxy aldehydes or polyhydroxy ketones, or change to such substances on simple chemical transformations, as hydrolysis, oxidation, or reduction, and that form the supporting tissues of plants and are important food for animals and people.
- simply put, it is the substance needed with food to support our body function.
Purpose: giving energy for the day/moment, depending on the carbohydrate eaten, and stored as fat if not used.
Complex — whole grains, cereals, brown rice, fruits, veggies. — GOOD
Simple — white bread, white rice, enriched flour, refined sugars. — BAD
Here’s the fact, your good carbs ought to be a big part of your diet IN THE MORNING to give you long lasting energy. They are not meant for the rest of the day. They need to be used throughout. The more active you are, the more you’ll need in the morning. The less active, the less you’ll need.
Also, measure your serving sizes, and STAY AWAY from simple carbohydrates.
Your proteins, veggies, and some fruits can be eaten through the day.
Studying basic biology, physiology, and kinesiology would eliminate a lot of misconceptions.
Study the truth for yourself. Don’t take their word for it because they look good or have a title. You want health and wellness.37 -
@nvmomketo You got me curious, so I googled and it seems the standard definition of a low-fat diet is 30% or less.
As to the OP, I don't get the fascination with trying to find a universally optimal macro distribution. I don't even really get why it would be logical for there to be one. The only thing I take from that blog post, as well as other pop-health headlines I'm seeing, is that the industry might be sensing that they've maxed out keto promotion, so now they have to play another angle and try to sell something different.13 -
AlexanderLannister wrote: »Studying basic biology, physiology, and kinesiology would eliminate a lot of misconceptions.15
-
Where to be a glucose/high carb fueled animal or a ketone/low carb fueled animal never has been the basic question it now seems per current research when it comes to gaining better mental/physical health/longevity.
Eating the way that improves one's DNA and mtDNA quality and quantity is the only thing that I factor into my Way Of Eating these days. Yes it may be high carb for some and low carb for others since we all do not have the same genetic and epigenetic traits.
https://scientificamerican.com/article/brain-rsquo-s-dumped-dna-may-lead-to-stress-depression/
"....Scientists are starting to realize stress often exacerbates several diseases, including depression, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, HIV/AIDS and asthma. One theory is hoping to explain the link between stress and such widespread havoc by laying the blame on an unexpected source—the microscopic powerhouses inside each cell...."
"Together, this growing understanding of circulating mitochondrial DNA sets a time frame for how psychological stress may lead to widespread inflammation, Picard says. “Mitochondria are the missing link between our psychological state and neurological or other disorders involving inflammation,” he says.
It is an interesting shift away from the traditional, anatomical aspects of disease, such as brain shrinkage in depressed patients. But reducing disorders like depression to brain imbalances or shrinkage simply has not explained everything, says Bruce McEwen, a neuroendocrinologist at The Rockefeller University. “If that was the case, you could take Prozac or [selective] serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs] to fix it, but everybody is now realizing that that’s not the way it works,” he says. “Otherwise, antidepressants would be more effective.”
If further evidence of the importance of healthy mitochondria continues to emerge, drugs that focus on regulating cellular energy production instead could become a new line of defense for psychiatric and biological disorders.
21 -
AlexanderLannister wrote: »Studying basic biology, physiology, and kinesiology would eliminate a lot of misconceptions.
Also? It might help to properly define complex and simple carbs.
To keep it simple, complex carbs are starches and simple carbs are sugars.
Brown rice and white rice are complex carbs. Apples and milk are simple carbs.
The distinction is that white rice is a refined complex carbohydrate, brown rice is not. They are both still complex carbohydrates.
The level of how refined white rice is? Well, it's orders of magnitude less than say, an oreo. Both, however, have a place in an otherwise nutritionally sound diet in moderation.19 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »AlexanderLannister wrote: »Studying basic biology, physiology, and kinesiology would eliminate a lot of misconceptions.
Also? It might help to properly define complex and simple carbs.
To keep it simple, complex carbs are starches and simple carbs are sugars.
Brown rice and white rice are complex carbs. Apples and milk are simple carbs.
The distinction is that white rice is a refined complex carbohydrate, brown rice is not. They are both still complex carbohydrates.
The level of how refined white rice is? Well, it's orders of magnitude less than say, an oreo. Both, however, have a place in an otherwise nutritionally sound diet in moderation.
It’s hilarious when people get “woo”’ed for providing information that is 100% factual/correct.
“If the facts do not conform to the theory, the facts must be disposed of!”
13 -
A bunch of keto zealots agreeing with each other does not make their opinions factual information
15 -
@nvmomketo You got me curious, so I googled and it seems the standard definition of a low-fat diet is 30% or less.
As to the OP, I don't get the fascination with trying to find a universally optimal macro distribution. I don't even really get why it would be logical for there to be one. The only thing I take from that blog post, as well as other pop-health headlines I'm seeing, is that the industry might be sensing that they've maxed out keto promotion, so now they have to play another angle and try to sell something different.
Thanks for sharing that. I was not sure if there was an accepted definition for low fat yet. Below 30% sounds reasonable... it's actually higher than I would have expected for a definition for low fat.
So if someone is eating 45-65% carbs, then it's fairly safe to assume that most would be eating low fat (under 30% fat); and if not eating low fat, then they would be eating low protein - not wise.
(I'm assuming low protein is under around 15%, but I haven't seen a definition for low protein either.)3 -
AlexanderLannister wrote: »I believe there is a lot of dispute due to misunderstanding biology and terminology. We ought to start with the term carbohydrates (carbs), then move onto their purpose, then which ones are good or bad.
Defining
Carbohydrates: any of a class of organic compounds that are polyhydroxy aldehydes or polyhydroxy ketones, or change to such substances on simple chemical transformations, as hydrolysis, oxidation, or reduction, and that form the supporting tissues of plants and are important food for animals and people.
- simply put, it is the substance needed with food to support our body function.
Purpose: giving energy for the day/moment, depending on the carbohydrate eaten, and stored as fat if not used.
Complex — whole grains, cereals, brown rice, fruits, veggies. — GOOD
Simple — white bread, white rice, enriched flour, refined sugars. — BAD
Here’s the fact, your good carbs ought to be a big part of your diet IN THE MORNING to give you long lasting energy. They are not meant for the rest of the day. They need to be used throughout. The more active you are, the more you’ll need in the morning. The less active, the less you’ll need.
Also, measure your serving sizes, and STAY AWAY from simple carbohydrates.
Your proteins, veggies, and some fruits can be eaten through the day.
Studying basic biology, physiology, and kinesiology would eliminate a lot of misconceptions.
Study the truth for yourself. Don’t take their word for it because they look good or have a title. You want health and wellness.
I just call carbs the macronutrient found primarily in plants. Whether simple or complex, it still breaks down into glucose in the body, although fibre can have a positive effect on how much blood glucose is affected.
I eat almost no carbs. What carbs are do eat, I would eat later in the day. First thing in the morning I have higher BG so I don't need exogenous carbs.5 -
-
@nvmomketo You got me curious, so I googled and it seems the standard definition of a low-fat diet is 30% or less.
As to the OP, I don't get the fascination with trying to find a universally optimal macro distribution. I don't even really get why it would be logical for there to be one. The only thing I take from that blog post, as well as other pop-health headlines I'm seeing, is that the industry might be sensing that they've maxed out keto promotion, so now they have to play another angle and try to sell something different.
Thanks for sharing that. I was not sure if there was an accepted definition for low fat yet. Below 30% sounds reasonable... it's actually higher than I would have expected for a definition for low fat.
So if someone is eating 45-65% carbs, then it's fairly safe to assume that most would be eating low fat (under 30% fat); and if not eating low fat, then they would be eating low protein - not wise.
(I'm assuming low protein is under around 15%, but I haven't seen a definition for low protein either.)
USDA fe recommends 10-35% of calories from protein.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions