6 ms·

> your body needs a fair amount of carbs every day This is factually wrong. The human body ~100 grams of protein, ~10 grams of fat, and zero carbs to stay heal

by abtinf 9y ago

> your body needs a fair amount of carbs every day This is factually wrong. The human body ~100 grams of protein, ~10 grams of fat, and zero carbs to stay healthy. The minimal amount of glucose required for brain function can be synthesized from protein intake. And carb deficiency is not associated with any impairment or disease.

nathan-wailes 9y ago
Thanks for the response; see my response to hashable. I'm trying to think a better way of expressing what I mean; I'm open to suggestions.
- Ixiaus 9y ago
  I think if you framed what you're trying to say in terms of addiction, availability, and avoidability [of carbs] it would be clearer. That's my interpretation of what you were trying to say, which might be wrong.
nzygs 9y ago
> The human body ~100 grams of protein, ~10 grams of fat, and zero carbs to stay healthy Could you provide source (studies not blogposts or youtube videos) on this matter? Also what is your opinion on 80/10/10 or Okinawa diet? Okinavians used to get most of their calories from carbs and they had one of the longest lifespans in the world. All things considered I am not against the keto diet but the food that people on it eat. Animal based fats, usually heavily processed meats like bacon, sausages etc on which there are peer reviewed studies that show their correlation to cancer and heart deceases. Most of the information can be found here: https://nutritionfacts.org/ https://nutritionfacts.org/ the videos linked have their sources provided in the description. And those are mostly peer reviewed studies as well!
- Ixiaus 9y ago
  I'm on mobile so cannot lookup your references or provide any of my own. I will say that there's interesting research surfacing that is implicating insulin as the big nasty, not specifically carbs. Which would mean to me that if you consume foods that have a more moderate insulin response coupled with regular physical activity and other hormone balancing behaviors that kind of lifestyle would be okay. Our addiction to convenience as mediated by oil and refined carbohydrates doesn't ground people in their bodies, causing the acceleration towards extremes (obesity or ascetic diets like keto--which I personally follow).
- abtinf 9y ago
  My original source for those numbers is from the book Protein Power https://www.amazon.com/Protein-Power-High-Protein-Carbohydrate-Health/dp/0553574752/ https://www.amazon.com/Protein-Power-High-Protein-Carbohydra...
  - nzygs 9y ago
    I don't have the book but maybe you could provide me with some references that were used to write this? I'd like to look into it myself. Also "An effective, medically sound diet that lets you eat bacon, eggs, steak, even cheese? It's true!" Is just wrong. Medically sound my ass. Of course you're going to get people to buy a book that says that you can eat what you want (E.g. lots of animal fats), doesn't make it the right... far from it actually. As I said before I have nothing against keto/high fat low carb diets but the commonly consumed foods are awful. Basically no micronutrients, mostly animal fats and excessive amounts of protein. Those really aren't doing you much good. If books on keto diet were suggesting nuts, seeds, berries, avocado and some meat that wasn't heavily proccessed as basis of it's diet I wouldn't comment at now I am sure that lots of people are going to look into keto and hop on bacon + eggs all day every day kind of regime.
    - braindouche 9y ago
      Then check out Dr Atkins New Diet Revolution, and an older copy at that. Keto diets are roughly equivalent to Atkins' "induction phase", and Atkins followers have known for decades that you can stay on induction (against the advice in the book) for as long as you like. NDR addresses your concerns on processed meats directly and does suggest a wider variety of foods.
- sleavey 9y ago
  It's probably genetic. Some people can eat a high carb diet and feel fine, and not suffer the metabolic damage that others would. But that's definitely a minority of the world population. The Okinawans seem to eat a lot of a certain type of purple sweet potato which contains a good balance of vitamins and minerals, but they also have a strong social element - elders are highly respected and given responsibilities that keep them focused - and naturally they exercise a lot due to the terrain, so it's not just the food.
  - xiaoma 9y ago
    Every time I go to Okinawa, like anywhere in Japan, I see people eating either noodles or white rice with nearly every single meal. People often even have rice (and an egg) for breakfast.
  - calvano915 9y ago
    Ectomorph, endomorph, mesomorph = the genetic aspect
- jm2721 9y ago
  The Okinawans got their carbohydrates primarily from vegetables with a low glycemic index, primarily the imo sweet potato (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-buettner/okinawa-blue-zone_b_7012042.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-buettner/okinawa-blue-zone...). They also consumed a decent amount of Omega-3 fatty acides, since they ate fish three times a week; fish that was likely not contaminated with mercury or factory farmed. It's worth noting that once sugar and refined carbohydrates were introduced into their diet, they went from having the highest longevity out of 47 prefectures in Japan to the 26th (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/3342882/Japanese-get-a-taste-for-Western-food-and-fall-victim-to-obesity-and-early-death.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/3342882/Japanese...). That article came out 10 years ago, and the situation is worse now (haven't been able to find any written sources for this, but it's explained in the documentary 'Sugar Coated'). As a counter to the Okinawans, we can look at the Maasai people of northern Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasai_people#Diet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasai_people#Diet, who exclusively ate meat, milk and blood from cattle yet had no incidence of heart disease, cancer, tooth decay, or obesity. I think the point here is that we haven't really honed in on what exact macronutrient composition is the perfect one for a human body. Humans appear to adapt well to any macronutrient composition, as shown above by the diets of different cultures (I think if you took a global survey in 1900 of what different societies were eating, you would find all manner of different diets but very low rates of disease in all or most of them). What we have identified is that we're seeing unprecedented levels of cancer, obesity, alzheimers and cardiovascular disease. So the question to ask is "What changed in the past 50 years?" I would say it's a few things (ordered by severity): 1. Sugar. We don't need sugar to survive, yet we eat mountains of it. 2. Refined, high GI carbohydrates. 3. Vegetable oils. Seed oils like canola, sunflower, or palm oil (not Olive/Avocado/Coconut oil) are high in pro-inflammatory Omega-6 fatty acids and polyunsaturated fats. 4. Factory farmed meats, also high in Omega-6 fatty acids. You can find counterexamples to any macronutrient focused diet, as we did above, but there doesn't exist a society that consumes sugar, refined carbohydrates, or vegetable oils in abundance and still lives long, disease free lives. To date, there is no counterexample that says the modern western diet is in any way healthy. Regarding the studies you mention, I don't doubt that heavily processed meats like bacon and sausages are bad for you, though it's because of the Omega-6 fatty acids in factory farmed meats which are known cause arterial inflammation and contribute to atherosclerosis (grass fed beef, pork, or pastured chicken does not have this problem). That said, I am heavily skeptical of any studies that show 'links' to cancer. Just because two things correlate doesn't mean that one causes the other. Nutritional studies are notoriously difficult to conduct accurately, and have been plagued with bad logic (correlation != causation), bad statistics, and perverse incentives (such as the incentive to reach an interesting conclusion or risk losing government funding) or conflicts of interest (being funded by the sugar industry or big pharma). You ask for a good source (not blogposts/youtube videos) on what the OP posted; in kind, could you link to the studies that you're talking about?
ksk 9y ago
No, Sir, _YOU_ are factually wrong. The long term effects of Keto are FAR from being understood. OTOH, All of our ancestors ate carbs, and our bodies evolved to support diets that included carbs from various sources. You should make it absolutely clear that you're advocating a position based on your personal opinion, and not scientific consensus. This is far from being settled. Our understanding of human metabolism is woefully inadequate.
- jshevek 9y ago
  [The] statements you make above don't actually address the claims he made. While a certain diet/lifestyle may be controversial, the specific claims he made about carbs are well established by medical science, and are not controversial.
  - ksk 9y ago
    Err, they said this > And carb deficiency is not associated with any impairment or disease. This is an entirely false statement. Different people have different reactions to carbohydrate restriction based on genetics, past diet, medical issues, environmental factors, and a boatload of other well understood reasons.
    - sn9 9y ago
      Can you list anything specifically that anyone is likely to encounter? Your comments are rather vague.
      - ksk 9y ago
        The field is so vast that it depends on what you want to look at. So for e.g. When you consume a high protein diet (proteins > purine > uric acid) you can have problems with your kidneys. I've seen reports of people ending up in the hospital because the body couldn't regulate blood glucose, caused by a low-carb diet. Now, since its more ethical to experiment on rats, you can find numerous studies which show problems with both LCHF/LCHP diets - including long term bone health impact, growth hormone, etc. Note that you can also find benefits (none of which are unique to low-carb AFAICT), but its one of those things where continuing to eat a normal diet doesn't require "proof", but even a single major problem with an extreme diet, is cause for concern. his is a problem with extreme diets in general, because you have to become somewhat of a mini-expert yourself to be able to determine if the diet is providing you all the things you need. The people who tell you its "simple" are the ones who have invested a lot of time (or they were already knowledgeable) in learning about the various factors.
thornygreb 9y ago
100g protein * 4 = 400 calories + 10g fat * 9 = 490 calories to stay healthy? Maybe if you are 3ft tall and sedentary.
- jshevek 9y ago
  He's making a statement about the biological need for certain macro-nutrients as such. He's not making a statement about your total calorie need. The balance of your calories could come from other sources, however there is a minimum amount of protein and fat that the body does need for non-nutritional purposes. There is no minimum amount of carbs that the body needs.

by abtinf 9y ago

nathan-wailes 9y ago

Thanks for the response; see my response to hashable. I'm trying to think a better way of expressing what I mean; I'm open to suggestions.

Ixiaus 9y ago
I think if you framed what you're trying to say in terms of addiction, availability, and avoidability [of carbs] it would be clearer. That's my interpretation of what you were trying to say, which might be wrong.

nzygs 9y ago

> The human body ~100 grams of protein, ~10 grams of fat, and zero carbs to stay healthy Could you provide source (studies not blogposts or youtube videos) on this matter? Also what is your opinion on 80/10/10 or Okinawa diet? Okinavians used to get most of their calories from carbs and they had one of the longest lifespans in the world. All things considered I am not against the keto diet but the food that people on it eat. Animal based fats, usually heavily processed meats like bacon, sausages etc on which there are peer reviewed studies that show their correlation to cancer and heart deceases. Most of the information can be found here: https://nutritionfacts.org/ https://nutritionfacts.org/ the videos linked have their sources provided in the description. And those are mostly peer reviewed studies as well!

Ixiaus 9y ago
I'm on mobile so cannot lookup your references or provide any of my own. I will say that there's interesting research surfacing that is implicating insulin as the big nasty, not specifically carbs. Which would mean to me that if you consume foods that have a more moderate insulin response coupled with regular physical activity and other hormone balancing behaviors that kind of lifestyle would be okay. Our addiction to convenience as mediated by oil and refined carbohydrates doesn't ground people in their bodies, causing the acceleration towards extremes (obesity or ascetic diets like keto--which I personally follow).
abtinf 9y ago
My original source for those numbers is from the book Protein Power https://www.amazon.com/Protein-Power-High-Protein-Carbohydrate-Health/dp/0553574752/ https://www.amazon.com/Protein-Power-High-Protein-Carbohydra...
- nzygs 9y ago
  I don't have the book but maybe you could provide me with some references that were used to write this? I'd like to look into it myself. Also "An effective, medically sound diet that lets you eat bacon, eggs, steak, even cheese? It's true!" Is just wrong. Medically sound my ass. Of course you're going to get people to buy a book that says that you can eat what you want (E.g. lots of animal fats), doesn't make it the right... far from it actually. As I said before I have nothing against keto/high fat low carb diets but the commonly consumed foods are awful. Basically no micronutrients, mostly animal fats and excessive amounts of protein. Those really aren't doing you much good. If books on keto diet were suggesting nuts, seeds, berries, avocado and some meat that wasn't heavily proccessed as basis of it's diet I wouldn't comment at now I am sure that lots of people are going to look into keto and hop on bacon + eggs all day every day kind of regime.
  - braindouche 9y ago
    Then check out Dr Atkins New Diet Revolution, and an older copy at that. Keto diets are roughly equivalent to Atkins' "induction phase", and Atkins followers have known for decades that you can stay on induction (against the advice in the book) for as long as you like. NDR addresses your concerns on processed meats directly and does suggest a wider variety of foods.
sleavey 9y ago
It's probably genetic. Some people can eat a high carb diet and feel fine, and not suffer the metabolic damage that others would. But that's definitely a minority of the world population. The Okinawans seem to eat a lot of a certain type of purple sweet potato which contains a good balance of vitamins and minerals, but they also have a strong social element - elders are highly respected and given responsibilities that keep them focused - and naturally they exercise a lot due to the terrain, so it's not just the food.
- xiaoma 9y ago
  Every time I go to Okinawa, like anywhere in Japan, I see people eating either noodles or white rice with nearly every single meal. People often even have rice (and an egg) for breakfast.
- calvano915 9y ago
  Ectomorph, endomorph, mesomorph = the genetic aspect
jm2721 9y ago
The Okinawans got their carbohydrates primarily from vegetables with a low glycemic index, primarily the imo sweet potato (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-buettner/okinawa-blue-zone_b_7012042.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-buettner/okinawa-blue-zone...). They also consumed a decent amount of Omega-3 fatty acides, since they ate fish three times a week; fish that was likely not contaminated with mercury or factory farmed. It's worth noting that once sugar and refined carbohydrates were introduced into their diet, they went from having the highest longevity out of 47 prefectures in Japan to the 26th (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/3342882/Japanese-get-a-taste-for-Western-food-and-fall-victim-to-obesity-and-early-death.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/3342882/Japanese...). That article came out 10 years ago, and the situation is worse now (haven't been able to find any written sources for this, but it's explained in the documentary 'Sugar Coated'). As a counter to the Okinawans, we can look at the Maasai people of northern Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasai_people#Diet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasai_people#Diet, who exclusively ate meat, milk and blood from cattle yet had no incidence of heart disease, cancer, tooth decay, or obesity. I think the point here is that we haven't really honed in on what exact macronutrient composition is the perfect one for a human body. Humans appear to adapt well to any macronutrient composition, as shown above by the diets of different cultures (I think if you took a global survey in 1900 of what different societies were eating, you would find all manner of different diets but very low rates of disease in all or most of them). What we have identified is that we're seeing unprecedented levels of cancer, obesity, alzheimers and cardiovascular disease. So the question to ask is "What changed in the past 50 years?" I would say it's a few things (ordered by severity): 1. Sugar. We don't need sugar to survive, yet we eat mountains of it. 2. Refined, high GI carbohydrates. 3. Vegetable oils. Seed oils like canola, sunflower, or palm oil (not Olive/Avocado/Coconut oil) are high in pro-inflammatory Omega-6 fatty acids and polyunsaturated fats. 4. Factory farmed meats, also high in Omega-6 fatty acids. You can find counterexamples to any macronutrient focused diet, as we did above, but there doesn't exist a society that consumes sugar, refined carbohydrates, or vegetable oils in abundance and still lives long, disease free lives. To date, there is no counterexample that says the modern western diet is in any way healthy. Regarding the studies you mention, I don't doubt that heavily processed meats like bacon and sausages are bad for you, though it's because of the Omega-6 fatty acids in factory farmed meats which are known cause arterial inflammation and contribute to atherosclerosis (grass fed beef, pork, or pastured chicken does not have this problem). That said, I am heavily skeptical of any studies that show 'links' to cancer. Just because two things correlate doesn't mean that one causes the other. Nutritional studies are notoriously difficult to conduct accurately, and have been plagued with bad logic (correlation != causation), bad statistics, and perverse incentives (such as the incentive to reach an interesting conclusion or risk losing government funding) or conflicts of interest (being funded by the sugar industry or big pharma). You ask for a good source (not blogposts/youtube videos) on what the OP posted; in kind, could you link to the studies that you're talking about?

ksk 9y ago

No, Sir, _YOU_ are factually wrong. The long term effects of Keto are FAR from being understood. OTOH, All of our ancestors ate carbs, and our bodies evolved to support diets that included carbs from various sources. You should make it absolutely clear that you're advocating a position based on your personal opinion, and not scientific consensus. This is far from being settled. Our understanding of human metabolism is woefully inadequate.

jshevek 9y ago
[The] statements you make above don't actually address the claims he made. While a certain diet/lifestyle may be controversial, the specific claims he made about carbs are well established by medical science, and are not controversial.
- ksk 9y ago
  Err, they said this > And carb deficiency is not associated with any impairment or disease. This is an entirely false statement. Different people have different reactions to carbohydrate restriction based on genetics, past diet, medical issues, environmental factors, and a boatload of other well understood reasons.
  - sn9 9y ago
    Can you list anything specifically that anyone is likely to encounter? Your comments are rather vague.
    - ksk 9y ago
      The field is so vast that it depends on what you want to look at. So for e.g. When you consume a high protein diet (proteins > purine > uric acid) you can have problems with your kidneys. I've seen reports of people ending up in the hospital because the body couldn't regulate blood glucose, caused by a low-carb diet. Now, since its more ethical to experiment on rats, you can find numerous studies which show problems with both LCHF/LCHP diets - including long term bone health impact, growth hormone, etc. Note that you can also find benefits (none of which are unique to low-carb AFAICT), but its one of those things where continuing to eat a normal diet doesn't require "proof", but even a single major problem with an extreme diet, is cause for concern. his is a problem with extreme diets in general, because you have to become somewhat of a mini-expert yourself to be able to determine if the diet is providing you all the things you need. The people who tell you its "simple" are the ones who have invested a lot of time (or they were already knowledgeable) in learning about the various factors.

thornygreb 9y ago

100g protein * 4 = 400 calories + 10g fat * 9 = 490 calories to stay healthy? Maybe if you are 3ft tall and sedentary.

jshevek 9y ago
He's making a statement about the biological need for certain macro-nutrients as such. He's not making a statement about your total calorie need. The balance of your calories could come from other sources, however there is a minimum amount of protein and fat that the body does need for non-nutritional purposes. There is no minimum amount of carbs that the body needs.