No Carb Diet
Replies
-
1 -
What do you plan on eating exactly if you're doing "no carbs"?1
-
yoyo is lulu1
-
-
born_of_fire74 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Blimey.
I mean.. ok, if you like eating that way and can see yourself doing it forever... But it's a hard pass from me. All I can think of is the inevitable constipation from the lack of fibre. And you know... the possibility of scurvy?
I usually eat about 150-180g of carbs a day. The weight is coming off just fine. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hmm... I have been eating carnivore for nearly a year and ate a carnivore diet for several months of 2017 as well. There is definitely not constipation.
Also, I don't know any any cases of scurvy from people eating a carnivore diet. Can you find even a single such example?
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2517958/
10-14% of populations in developed countries present with vitamin C deficiency, which is what causes scurvy. It's certainly not as common as it once was but you're lying to yourself if you think you are not at risk. You're in a better position if you actually consume organ meats and offal but most people turn their nose up at that yucky stuff. The thing about diseases due to vitamin or nutrient deficiency is that they are not like an injury that sidelines you quickly and obviously; you feel and perform mostly fine until the malady has progressed far enough to cause considerable symptoms. Take care.
You have failed to provide an example of someone getting scurvy from a carnivore diet. Instead, your study shows:His dietary history revealed that he ate mostly TV dinners, canned soups, and canned stewed vegetables...
My intent was not to prove that a carnivore diet is a specific risk, rather that scurvy is a risk at all. Just because OP doesn't know anyone with scurvy doesn't mean scurvy does not occur. If you look at my second post, I clearly state that I cannot say whether OP is at elevated risk.
Yes, everyone knows that scurvy exists. I have yet to see any evidence of a single person getting scurvy while eating a zero carb carnivore diet. And yet, I've met people who have been eating that way for more than a decade without interruption and without micro-nutrient supplementation.
The cool thing about statistics is that, unless otherwise stated, if 10-14% of the population present with vitamin C deficiency, it is safe to say that 10-14% of people on a carnivore diet will present with a vitamin C deficiency as they are part of the general population sample. A carnivore diet does not remove you from this risk.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. You seemed to scoff at the notion that there was any risk of scurvy at all, not that there was elevated risk related to your specific WOE.
And my apologies for conflating you with the actual OP. I have referred to OP a couple of times where I was actually referring to you.
Yes, you misunderstood, so I will clarify: Eating zero carb / carnivore does not increase one's chances of getting scurvy.1 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Blimey. I mean.. ok, if you like eating that way and can see yourself doing it forever... But it's a hard pass from me. All I can think of is the inevitable constipation from the lack of fibre. And you know... the possibility of scurvy?
I usually eat about 150-180g of carbs a day. The weight is coming off just fine. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hmm... I have been eating carnivore for nearly a year and ate a carnivore diet for several months of 2017 as well. There is definitely not constipation.
Also, I don't know any any cases of scurvy from people eating a carnivore diet. Can you find even a single such example?
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2517958/
10-14% of populations in developed countries present with vitamin C deficiency, which is what causes scurvy. It's certainly not as common as it once was but you're lying to yourself if you think you are not at risk. You're in a better position if you actually consume organ meats and offal but most people turn their nose up at that yucky stuff. The thing about diseases due to vitamin or nutrient deficiency is that they are not like an injury that sidelines you quickly and obviously; you feel and perform mostly fine until the malady has progressed far enough to cause considerable symptoms. Take care.
Of these 10-14%, are these people who are eating zero carbohydrate diets? Or are they people who are eating a diet that includes carbohydrates but is deficient in other ways?
I ask because I think that's a key distinction when we are determining whether this population is truly at risk for vitamin C deficiency.
There does not seem to be any dietary consideration in the study I linked so I presume it is for people consuming a "normal" balanced diet, including many of the fortified foods that helped to reduce the prevalence of scurvy (none of which are meat BTW).
My point is that, despite OP being anecdotally unaware of any scurvy cases, it is definitely still a risk even in developed countries. Whether OP is at elevated risk, I can't say.
Since you have now said you are talking about me rather than OP...
There is, in fact, dietary consideration in the study you linked. I quoted it above. That study is a case study about a particular individual, not a "10%-14%" group in developed countries.
If you look at micronutrients available in meat, you will find that vitamin C is the only micronutrient lacking in relation to RDA's. This is why so many eat beef without any problem... except they are consuming too little vitamin C compared to what is recommended. Many carnivore dieters have found that the lower consumption rate of vitamin C is fine because vitamin C and insulin use some of the same absorption pathways, so the low consumption of vitamin C with a zero carb diet is absorbed quite well. That's my understanding, though I acknowledge that I'm not an expert on this topic. Then again, I'm guessing nobody on this forum can properly be classified as a subject matter expert in this case.0 -
CindyJNC1963 wrote: »amishasingh wrote: »Going on no carb diet with a target to loose 1kg per week.wish me luck
I wonder what your definition of "carbs" sounds like.
I started on a low carb diet (under 90 grams) about 3 months ago. I was absolutely amazed at how many carbs are in things like fruit. I had no idea. I'm guessing I'm not alone. One smallish pear is about 1/3 of my carb allotment for the day. Forget eating most of the frozen dinners from Lean Cuisine or Smart Ones either.
I think there are many carbs that have a place in a healthy way of eating.
Complex versus refined , is one way to separate them.
Glycemic index is another way to distinguish the more nutritionally useful ones in the group.
Good luck with your choice.1 -
CindyJNC1963 wrote: »amishasingh wrote: »Going on no carb diet with a target to loose 1kg per week.wish me luck
I wonder what your definition of "carbs" sounds like.
I started on a low carb diet (under 90 grams) about 3 months ago. I was absolutely amazed at how many carbs are in things like fruit. I had no idea. I'm guessing I'm not alone. One smallish pear is about 1/3 of my carb allotment for the day. Forget eating most of the frozen dinners from Lean Cuisine or Smart Ones either.
I think there are many carbs that have a place in a healthy way of eating.
Complex versus refined , is one way to separate them.
Glycemic index is another way to distinguish the more nutritionally useful ones in the group.
Good luck with your choice.
I've gotten to a point where the commonly used labels aren't particularly helpful.
Usually it's complex/simple but those aren't used in any meaningful way any more and are often used incorrectly.
Complex/refined, is a new juxtaposition to me that also doesn't work for me.
Glycemic index is somewhat helpful.
Glycemic load more useful.
Personally I aim for: nutrient dense, high fiber, unrefined carbs (which tend then to be low on both the glycemic index and glycemic load scales). They tend to be complex carbs. Basically: vegetables, legumes, and low sugar fruits.
3 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »CindyJNC1963 wrote: »amishasingh wrote: »Going on no carb diet with a target to loose 1kg per week.wish me luck
I wonder what your definition of "carbs" sounds like.
I started on a low carb diet (under 90 grams) about 3 months ago. I was absolutely amazed at how many carbs are in things like fruit. I had no idea. I'm guessing I'm not alone. One smallish pear is about 1/3 of my carb allotment for the day. Forget eating most of the frozen dinners from Lean Cuisine or Smart Ones either.
I think there are many carbs that have a place in a healthy way of eating.
Complex versus refined , is one way to separate them.
Glycemic index is another way to distinguish the more nutritionally useful ones in the group.
Good luck with your choice.
I've gotten to a point where the commonly used labels aren't particularly helpful.
Usually it's complex/simple but those aren't used in any meaningful way any more and are often used incorrectly.
Lots of people (including Walter Willett) hate the simple/complex distinction. I think it caught on because simple just sounds bad, but it means sugar which is the main source of calories in fruit (which is full of micros and fiber) and doesn't distinguish between very refined starches and less processed starches, all of which are complex. Beans and oats are complex carbs with a good bit of fiber. Potatoes are a complex carb without too much fiber. Sweet potatoes are a complex carb with some simple carbs and not too much fiber. Whole wheat bread is a complex carb with some fiber. Potato chips are a complex carb (although not much fiber!) plus fat (half the calories or more). A cookie is a mix of simple and complex (although refined complex) carbs with fat (again half the calories). Pasta with a vegetable and olive oil and shrimp-based sauce (common for me) = complex carb (but refined) with added protein, fat, and fiber.
Point is that it's all more complicated (but not that difficult) than complex vs simple, which is pretty confusing and unhelpful.Glycemic index is somewhat helpful.
Not much, IMO.Glycemic load more useful.
Would agree with this if you consider meals as a whole.Personally I aim for: nutrient dense, high fiber, unrefined carbs (which tend then to be low on both the glycemic index and glycemic load scales). They tend to be complex carbs. Basically: vegetables, legumes, and low sugar fruits.
Mostly agree although I think for the vast majority of people worrying about the type of fruit they are consuming is a waste of time and likely to make them think a banana is less healthy than many worse (IMO) options. Although more important is overall diet.
My take is that a diet should prioritize enough protein (and think about fish and vegetable sources as good ones to include), have lots and lots of vegetables, have some fruit, have sufficient fat to make you feel satisfied (and think about nuts and seeds and avocado), and then for carbs, amount doesn't really matter (so long as the above is satisfied), but prioritize whole food, nutrient dense sources. If you want some high cal, low nutrient foods (like cheese or stereotypical snack or dessert foods), consume in moderation, get the other important things in first (or most days), and then add in reasonable portions. And don't obsess about them as "carbs" most have as much fat. (My personal weakness is ice cream, although at the moment I haven't had it since Thanksgiving. Had mediocre cake -- also fat + carbs, not "a carb" at a dinner that included a birthday party for me, though (Dec birthday) -- unexpected and I felt compelled to eat some, and thought it was really sweet of my friends even though cake is not my weakness. I think it would be bad if this was a fraught thing for me. As it was I knew it would be a high cal dinner so planned.)
I mostly find the obsession with "carbs"=bad is tiresome and not helpful in gaining an understanding of nutrition.6 -
CindyJNC1963 wrote: »amishasingh wrote: »Going on no carb diet with a target to loose 1kg per week.wish me luck
I wonder what your definition of "carbs" sounds like.
I started on a low carb diet (under 90 grams) about 3 months ago. I was absolutely amazed at how many carbs are in things like fruit. I had no idea. I'm guessing I'm not alone. One smallish pear is about 1/3 of my carb allotment for the day. Forget eating most of the frozen dinners from Lean Cuisine or Smart Ones either.
I think there are many carbs that have a place in a healthy way of eating.
Complex versus refined , is one way to separate them.
Glycemic index is another way to distinguish the more nutritionally useful ones in the group.
Good luck with your choice.
To follow up on my earlier comment , I think that what I do in actual practice is to think about the composition of the carb and base my selection on how much chewing is involved.
Huh? Chew factor carb analysis?
I look at it this way - the harder I have to work to eat food, the more work my body has to digest it. I think my body benefits much more by getting nutrients from food it breaks down thru natural bodily processes.
I think when the food producers have done all the refinement to make foods pourable, squeezable, smooth, or instant, that it is akin to pushing the out-of-gas car down the block in neutral rather than adding gas and running the engine.7 -
CindyJNC1963 wrote: »amishasingh wrote: »Going on no carb diet with a target to loose 1kg per week.wish me luck
I wonder what your definition of "carbs" sounds like.
I started on a low carb diet (under 90 grams) about 3 months ago. I was absolutely amazed at how many carbs are in things like fruit. I had no idea. I'm guessing I'm not alone. One smallish pear is about 1/3 of my carb allotment for the day. Forget eating most of the frozen dinners from Lean Cuisine or Smart Ones either.
I think there are many carbs that have a place in a healthy way of eating.
Complex versus refined , is one way to separate them.
Glycemic index is another way to distinguish the more nutritionally useful ones in the group.
Good luck with your choice.
I don't consider GI to be a particularly useful tool to distinguish nutritional value. It would lead people to conclude that foods like carrots, sweet potatoes, and beets are somehow less healthful than foods with a lower GI.
"Complex" and "refined" refer to two different types of evaluation, they aren't necessarily opposites to each other. There are complex and simple carbohydrates. Some of these may be refined, some may be unrefined.5 -
I don't get the chew thing, as I find fruit about the easiest thing in the world to eat. Clementines, berries, peaches, etc. I think the supposed difference between white and brown rice is greatly overstated, but there is zero difference in how difficult they are to eat. (I mostly don't care about rice and don't think it's much beyond a nice, starchy filler, ie, calorie source, so rarely eat it, but on occasion I enjoy it -- had it with salmon and veg last night.)
I really don't think there's some trick needed to distinguish between types of carbs. They fall into easy categories just by type of food: vegetables, fruit, starchy sides (these include mainly grains and tubers, and there are versions of them with added fat that tend to be higher cal), and then foods with added sugar (which often have lots of fat too and are dessert foods).
For me, vegetables are an "eat as much as you like, and if you don't tend to eat a lot naturally try to increase" food. Fruit is "ideally eat some, and if you enjoy them eat more, but be aware they can have more calories than veg." Starchy sides are largely optional, and I tend to prefer tubers and whole-grain based options as more nutrient dense (and be aware of portion size). I normally avoid options with lots of added fat but for special occasions (mashed potatoes with butter is, of course, a holiday delight, and I might get really good fries at a restaurant on occasion). Desserts are, obviously, desserts -- eat in moderation and make sure the calories are worth it (i.e., delicious, not just okay).
Those aren't so much "rules" as just how I think about it.7 -
I don't get the chew thing, as I find fruit about the easiest thing in the world to eat. Clementines, berries, peaches, etc. I think the supposed difference between white and brown rice is greatly overstated, but there is zero difference in how difficult they are to eat. (I mostly don't care about rice and don't think it's much beyond a nice, starchy filler, ie, calorie source, so rarely eat it, but on occasion I enjoy it -- had it with salmon and veg last night.)
I really don't think there's some trick needed to distinguish between types of carbs. They fall into easy categories just by type of food: vegetables, fruit, starchy sides (these include mainly grains and tubers, and there are versions of them with added fat that tend to be higher cal), and then foods with added sugar (which often have lots of fat too and are dessert foods).
For me, vegetables are an "eat as much as you like, and if you don't tend to eat a lot naturally try to increase" food. Fruit is "ideally eat some, and if you enjoy them eat more, but be aware they can have more calories than veg." Starchy sides are largely optional, and I tend to prefer tubers and whole-grain based options as more nutrient dense (and be aware of portion size). I normally avoid options with lots of added fat but for special occasions (mashed potatoes with butter is, of course, a holiday delight, and I might get really good fries at a restaurant on occasion). Desserts are, obviously, desserts -- eat in moderation and make sure the calories are worth it (i.e., delicious, not just okay).
Those aren't so much "rules" as just how I think about it.
I tend to think in terms of those categories too. If I'm making a soup and I add pasta, I'm probably going to reach for something like broccoli or kale as the next ingredient rather than something like a potato, even though the potato is as equally "unrefined" as the green vegetables. It just feels like the green vegetables balance out the soup in a way that the potato wouldn't.
When I'm eating a meal, I'm generally trying to create some kind of balance between carbohydrates (like you, I tend to treat starchier vegetables/grains as optional within a meal -- with the exception of beans, which I categorize as a protein), fat, and higher protein foods. So if a meal is coming together and I need some fat, I'm reaching for something like an avocado or coconut milk. The relative processing of each isn't really a consideration, just like when I need some protein I may reach for some beans or seitan.
I wouldn't say it would work for everyone, but it's worked very well for me.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »When I'm eating a meal, I'm generally trying to create some kind of balance between carbohydrates (like you, I tend to treat starchier vegetables/grains as optional within a meal -- with the exception of beans, which I categorize as a protein), fat, and higher protein foods. So if a meal is coming together and I need some fat, I'm reaching for something like an avocado or coconut milk. The relative processing of each isn't really a consideration, just like when I need some protein I may reach for some beans or seitan.
I wouldn't say it would work for everyone, but it's worked very well for me.
Yes, that's similar to me.
For me (since I eat meat), beans and lentils will be either a starchy side or protein depending on what else I'm eating with them.2 -
I am very, very new to healthy eating so this is all really interesting. It's too bad the OP disappeared, they could have learned something.2
-
born_of_fire74 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Blimey. I mean.. ok, if you like eating that way and can see yourself doing it forever... But it's a hard pass from me. All I can think of is the inevitable constipation from the lack of fibre. And you know... the possibility of scurvy?
I usually eat about 150-180g of carbs a day. The weight is coming off just fine. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hmm... I have been eating carnivore for nearly a year and ate a carnivore diet for several months of 2017 as well. There is definitely not constipation.
Also, I don't know any any cases of scurvy from people eating a carnivore diet. Can you find even a single such example?
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2517958/
10-14% of populations in developed countries present with vitamin C deficiency, which is what causes scurvy. It's certainly not as common as it once was but you're lying to yourself if you think you are not at risk. You're in a better position if you actually consume organ meats and offal but most people turn their nose up at that yucky stuff. The thing about diseases due to vitamin or nutrient deficiency is that they are not like an injury that sidelines you quickly and obviously; you feel and perform mostly fine until the malady has progressed far enough to cause considerable symptoms. Take care.
You have failed to provide an example of someone getting scurvy from a carnivore diet. Instead, your study shows:His dietary history revealed that he ate mostly TV dinners, canned soups, and canned stewed vegetables...
My intent was not to prove that a carnivore diet is a specific risk, rather that scurvy is a risk at all. Just because OP doesn't know anyone with scurvy doesn't mean scurvy does not occur. If you look at my second post, I clearly state that I cannot say whether OP is at elevated risk.
Yes, everyone knows that scurvy exists. I have yet to see any evidence of a single person getting scurvy while eating a zero carb carnivore diet. And yet, I've met people who have been eating that way for more than a decade without interruption and without micro-nutrient supplementation.
The cool thing about statistics is that, unless otherwise stated, if 10-14% of the population present with vitamin C deficiency, it is safe to say that 10-14% of people on a carnivore diet will present with a vitamin C deficiency as they are part of the general population sample. A carnivore diet does not remove you from this risk.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. You seemed to scoff at the notion that there was any risk of scurvy at all, not that there was elevated risk related to your specific WOE.
And my apologies for conflating you with the actual OP. I have referred to OP a couple of times where I was actually referring to you.
That is not how statistics work. A finding of some incidence of some characteristic in the overall population absolutely does not prove or even suggest that the incidence of the characteristic is the same in some subset of the population -- especially when you're talking about a fairly small incidence in the general population and a tiny subpopulation, so that there is no mathematical necessity that there must be some overlap between the set of those with the characteristic and those in the subpopulation.3 -
Low Carb is better than No Carb, Like Keto It will give good results8
-
the problem with no carb diets are that they are not sustainable. True that on a keto diet the body harvests more body fat but it can be at a cost to the internal organs that keep you alive.
It's fine to go on low carb diets because the carbs generally tend to come mainly from fruits and vegetables. Diabetics choose these diets quite often.
Unless you plan on staying "no" carb...it's pointless because there is an excellent chance you will gain back your weight loss when you stop the diet.....10 -
Dumb. Do you realistically believe you can go no/low carb for the rest of your life? Then don't do it. Its like starting on "weight loss pills" - if you cant do it for life, you are setting yourself up for failure.
I did low carb for 24 hours. It was hell. I could hardly lift a 5lb dumb bell. Lesson learnt, never again.3 -
It doesn't appear that OP actually meant no carb. What she meant is hard to know without her coming back.
There are people who do low carb sustainably for long periods of time, and there's no reason you have to eat the same number of carbs when dieting and when not. I tend to like moderate carb at maintenance, but when I cut calories I cut carbs more than protein (which I keep consistent or increase) and fat (which I cut some, but cutting it less tends to make it easier for me), so most of the cut comes from carbs. It's not very low carb, but around 100-120 g. That others find a lower carb way of eating (or even keto) works for them in maintenance doesn't surprise me, even though it's not my choice.6 -
the problem with no carb diets are that they are not sustainable. True that on a keto diet the body harvests more body fat but it can be at a cost to the internal organs that keep you alive.
It's fine to go on low carb diets because the carbs generally tend to come mainly from fruits and vegetables. Diabetics choose these diets quite often.
Unless you plan on staying "no" carb...it's pointless because there is an excellent chance you will gain back your weight loss when you stop the diet.....
body fat isnt harvested more in keto. fat is lost in a deficit. its not any higher of a loss doing keto than it is any other diet. thats one of the myths that many sites tell you.6 -
There are some who have been eating a zero carb / carnivore diet for well over a decade. Just because it is not sustainable for you doesn't mean it isn't sustainable for anyone.the problem with no carb diets are that they are not sustainable.dakotababy wrote: »Do you realistically believe you can go no/low carb for the rest of your life?
Yes.2 -
It doesn't appear that OP actually meant no carb. What she meant is hard to know without her coming back.
There are people who do low carb sustainably for long periods of time, and there's no reason you have to eat the same number of carbs when dieting and when not. I tend to like moderate carb at maintenance, but when I cut calories I cut carbs more than protein (which I keep consistent or increase) and fat (which I cut some, but cutting it less tends to make it easier for me), so most of the cut comes from carbs. It's not very low carb, but around 100-120 g. That others find a lower carb way of eating (or even keto) works for them in maintenance doesn't surprise me, even though it's not my choice.
I think you are right. Op probably meant no processed or refined carbs.
Low carb is sustainable. I've been doing keto for a few years, with most of the last year being close to carnivore. Low carbs suits some people very well.2 -
It doesn't appear that OP actually meant no carb. What she meant is hard to know without her coming back.
There are people who do low carb sustainably for long periods of time, and there's no reason you have to eat the same number of carbs when dieting and when not. I tend to like moderate carb at maintenance, but when I cut calories I cut carbs more than protein (which I keep consistent or increase) and fat (which I cut some, but cutting it less tends to make it easier for me), so most of the cut comes from carbs. It's not very low carb, but around 100-120 g. That others find a lower carb way of eating (or even keto) works for them in maintenance doesn't surprise me, even though it's not my choice.
I think you are right. Op probably meant no processed or refined carbs.
Given that she logged sweet tea (with carbs, the carbs necessarily came from added sugar), I think she meant no starchy carbs or something like that -- cutting out grains, tubers, maybe legumes. But we shall probably never know. ;-)
0 -
Wait what are carbs?0
-
Are you making the "is butter a carb?" joke or sincerely asking?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions