Is low carb healthy?

Comments

• i agree

  • Report
  

  by kathy-hajinlian on April 22nd, 2010

• Glad to know that I'm not the only 1 of my kind out here.

  • Report
  

  by Vaporeongirl on April 26th, 2010

Comments

• The only 'real' way? What does that mean?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 9th, 2010

• People always look for some fancy pill, or way to lose weight easier. The way we are meant to lose weight is burn calories. If you don't do that you are going to store the extra calories as fat.

  • Report
  

  by Maul on April 10th, 2010

• By 'real', Maul means 'realistic'.

  • Report
  

  by Meg on April 10th, 2010

• "The way we are meant to lose weight is burn calories."
  
  "Meant"? By who?
  
  "If you don't do that you are going to store the extra calories as fat."
  
  Not if you're not eating carbs. See if it's possible to gain weight (if you're overweight) on a zero carb diet. It can't be done.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 10th, 2010

• We are straying away from the question, which was "are low carb diets healthy" not "which diet most facilitates weight loss".
  
  Burning calories a simple equation: calorie in = calorie out. It's just like adding fuel to a car. Our metabolism is our beautifully designed engine. Wouldn't you want to take care of it as best you can?
  
  You eat excess carbs (consuming them faster than you use them)= weight gain
  You eat excess fat (consuming it faster than you use it)= weight gain
  You eat excess protein (consuming it faster than you use it)= weight gain
  
  The answer is VARIETY AND MODERATION, which people don't seem to understand.

  • Report
  

  by Meg on April 10th, 2010

• VARIETY and MODERATION sound very nice. Especially in high caps. But how do we know what that constitutes? Should a carnivore eat a variety of fruits and vegetables? Should it moderate its meat intake?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 10th, 2010

• Humans have not evolved to be strict carnivores. I am not an expert on carnivore anatomy and physiology, but I'm guessing they probably have evolved livers that are designed to metabolize only meat, unlike us humans. So therefore, no, a carnivore cannot "eat a variety of fruits and vegetables" because they are not designed to do so. Nor are we designed to eat just meat.

  • Report
  

  by Meg on April 11th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

• yes but you do need carbs in your body.

  • Report
  

  by Lets Go Sharks on June 13th, 2009

• Dude. . .not excessive carbs.

  • Report
  

  by Pete on June 13th, 2009

• did i say excessive?No I didnt.Im saying you still need some carbs a day.

  • Report
  

  by Lets Go Sharks on June 13th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• WTF??!?

  • Report
  

  by Ice654 on August 30th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

• who?

  • Report
  

  by dea_ex_machina on April 7th, 2010

• Some guy who slipped on some ice and suffered brain damage?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 9th, 2010

• ok.. so some guy who slipped on ice and had brain damage died because he was overweight and had heart disease?

  • Report
  

  by dea_ex_machina on April 9th, 2010

Comments

• Everybody? Really? So the Inuit don't function. Right.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 8th, 2010

• The Inuit have actually evolved to be able to handle a high-fat, high-protein diet. They have enlarged livers and large urine volumes, to be able to process all that excess protein. The high fat content in their diet actually prevents protein poisoning.
  So, although the Inuit can function, I don't think the average American Joe can function like that

  • Report
  

  by Meg on April 10th, 2010

• Not true. For one thing, their diet is not very high in protein. Also, people from any other race do just as well on their diet. See "Adventures in Diet." The Inuit are not anything special genetically.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 10th, 2010

• So if their diet isn't high in protein or carbs, what's left? what do the Inuit eat in your opinion?

  • Report
  

  by Meg on April 10th, 2010

• Fat.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 10th, 2010

• Everyday science says something new is bad for you then a few years down the line they realize that it's actually good for you and name something else as bad. So eat a little bit of everything and there will be no problems.

  • Report
  

  by Funkycherry on April 10th, 2010

• My point exactly!

  • Report
  

  by Meg on April 11th, 2010

• @ Anonymous: The Inuit actually consume large amounts of protein in the form of whale, seal, fish and caribou. Yes, the diet is high in fat, but it is definitely not a main source. No human can live very long off an 100% fat diet very long.

  • Report
  

  by Meg on April 11th, 2010

Comments

• "Low-carb diets work to lose weight - they are effective simply because they are a way of controlling calorie intake."
  
  Not true. You can eat as many calories as you wish, as long as they're not carbs, and still lose weight, as long as you are overweight to begin with. If you don't believe me I recommend putting it to the test. I did. Ate more calories than before, without exercising, and lost it fast.
  This is why low carb diets don't need calorie counting.
  
  "Any diet that unbalances your nutrient intake is unhealthy in the long term."
  There is no evidence that this is true. How do I know? Because no long term studies have been conducted yet comparing "balanced" vs. "unbalanced" diets (like the low carb ones). It was only very recently, after years of begging, cajoling and demanding, that the government decided to fund a few studies to even look at the effects of somewhat reduced carb diets. This lack of curiosity by so-called nutrition "scientists" is curious in itself. It creates the impression that they're trying to defend a dogma, rather than find the truth.
  
  "Balance and discipline are, as always, key."
  
  Why? What is balance, anyway? Balanced against what?
  
  "Eat natural, low-processed foods."
  
  Again, why? What do you mean by natural? Almost all of the plant-based foods we eat come from the domesticated, not wild, varieties.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 9th, 2010

• We've been down this road before.
  There ARE studies clearly showing that a human body, when deprived of some essential nutrients, begins to operate sub-normally. Some diseases are caused soley by lack of certain vitamins.
  This idea of some kind of conspiracy by doctors and scientists against your totally, completely unfounded assertion that you "can eat as much non-carb food as you want and not gain weight" is interesting in itself - suggesting some kind of problem in your own head...
  
  
  Domesticated leaves and grains have been compared to wild plants and there's no difference in terms of nutrient content - sometimes domesticated are even better. I'll do some searches and find some references - although last time I did that you ignored them and continued bleating.

  • Report
  

  by Friartuck on April 10th, 2010

• I wholeheartedly agree with Friartuck. There is no difference between natural and domesticated varieties of plants. The term 'processed' means refined to the point that it doesn't even look like food anymore. Think Froot Loops. Colors like that don't occur in nature.

  • Report
  

  by Meg on April 10th, 2010

• From Friartuck;
  
  "Eat natural, low-processed foods."
  
  "Domesticated leaves and grains have been compared to wild plants and there's no difference in terms of nutrient content - sometimes domesticated are even better."
  
  Well, Meg, I'm glad you wholeheartedly agree with him as even he, himself, doesn't seem to.
  I won't argue any more because it is impossible to win against someone who is taking both sides of a debate.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 10th, 2010

• His answer seems to be consistent with mine: low carb diets are great to lose the initial weight (especially if you're overweight and the benefits outweigh the risks), but unhealthy as a long-term solution.

  • Report
  

  by Meg on April 10th, 2010

Comments

• It wouldn't make any more sense to eat based on your blood type than it would for your astrological sign. It only goes to show you how much quackery there is in the world of nutrition "science".
  The Atkins only tells you to avoid dairy with a lot of carbs, like milk, for instance. Most cheese is O.K.
  The Atkins makes you lose weight due to the carb restriction. Unfortunately, it tries to have it both ways by allowing you to go back eating them later in the diet. That's when it fails. Anyone can lose weight and keep it off easily on the Atkins if they just stick with the induction phase and never go off it.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 9th, 2010

• i was thinking of doing the atkins diet every morning for breakfast - I like the bacon and eggs option. But I would need to switch to a different diet at lunchtimes, because sandwiches are easy to eat for lunch - and then in the evenings switch to a high carb diet so i can have pasta. Do you think that might work?

  • Report
  

  by dea_ex_machina on April 9th, 2010

• For sandwhiches keep the bread at mininmum. So have just one but pile on the meat, cheese and mayo. Bacon double cheeseburger without fries is good enough if you're in a cafetaria and don't want to seem weird by throwing away the bun. No pop unless it's diet.
  Pasta will not work. Sorry, but you're going to have to give that up.
  The most important thing I would like to emphasize is that you should make sure it doesn't become a high protein diet. Fat should be about 75% of the calories you eat. So stay away from the lean cuts of meat.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 9th, 2010

• *LOL* I was joking - with the idea of doing three different diets and expecting it to work

  • Report
  

  by dea_ex_machina on April 9th, 2010

Comments

• We are hardly a culture that is opposed to carbs. Just take a look at all the chips, candies, hamburgers, cookies and sodas out there! The current research points towards EMBRACING HEALTHY CARBS. The reason why it's so hard to stay on carb-free diets is because of the intense cravings we experience if our bodies are running low on glucose. Our brains run on glucose, so if blood glucose is low because we are not consuming any and the reserves in our liver are depleted, that box of cookies begins to look very appealing!
  
  Source: Human Anatomy & Physiology, 8th Edition by Elaine N. Marieb and Katja Hoehn

  • Report
  

  by Meg on April 10th, 2010

• "We are hardly a culture that is opposed to carbs."
  
  Uh, yeah, that's my point.
  
  "The reason why it's so hard to stay on carb-free diets is because of the intense cravings we experience if our bodies are running low on glucose."
  
  A high fat diet keeps blood sugar at a pretty constant level. Carb consumption creates peaks and valleys causing people to go into a vicious cycle of eating more and more to to stave off these lows.
  Try it sometime. Eat exactly 1,000 (or whatever you choose) calories of non-lean hamburger on an empty stomach and see how long you can go before the hunger kicks in. Then, the next day, try it with 1,000 calories of something fat-free.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 10th, 2010

• It's true fat keeps you fuller longer, but it certainly does not affect your blood sugar levels. This is why a COMBINED diet of proteins, carbs and fats is more realistic and healthy.
  
  You are correct in that fat provides sufficient amounts of calories for us to function, but it is not safe to rely on fat or protein alone. Put simply, when the body is starved of carbohydrates (a relatively ready form of glucose), it starts to break down fat instead. However, an important element is missing(oxaloacetic acid) when carbs are not available. When carbs are deficient, this oxaloacetic acid is instead converted to glucose to fuel the brain instead. The problem is that when OA acid is being used for something else (in this case, to make glucose which is deficient), fat metabolism eventually stops because it also needs OA to turn itself into energy. Eventually, the fat metabolism process stalls at a certain step (which cannot continue unless there's OA) and ketone bodies begin to accumulate in the blood. Elevated ketone bodies in the blood results in ketosis, where large amounts of ketones are excreted in the urine. The consequence of ketosis is metabolic acidosis, where blood pH levels drop to dangerously low levels. In severe, untreated cases, the person can go into a coma or die as the acid pH depresses the nervous system.
  
  This process is what affects diabetics when their cells can't use the glucose they consume without insulin.
  
  I'm a physiology student, so I work with this stuff daily.

  • Report
  

  by Meg on April 10th, 2010

• Wow. So a person on an all meat diet would be in very serious trouble within about how much time, would you say?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 10th, 2010

• Well, for a non-diabetic, they would probably have to go through their entire stores of glycogen in the liver (the back-up sugar our bodies store in case there is no sugar available). Also, the person would have to be on an almost entirely carb-free diet (which is what you were suggesting), which means consuming no milk, yogurt, nuts, turkey stuffing, ketchup, root vegetables, etc (you find carbs in the most unlikely places these days!). You'd have to be burning the energy from those carbs faster than you're consuming them. So if theoretically you religiously stuck to your low-carb diet (without cheating!), you'd probably be in trouble within a few weeks.
  
  My overweight mother went on one of these diets, and she had to be monitored closely by a doctor in order to do it safely. Then he slowly re-introduced carbs into her diet. It's not something the average person can do safely without guidance. It should only be used in extreme cases.

  • Report
  

  by Meg on April 11th, 2010

• Guess what? I set you up. What you claim would happen was put to the test by the top researchers 80 years ago.
  Google "Adventures in Diet."

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 11th, 2010

• These were isolated studies done in the 1930s. They didn't know half of what we know about physiology today. There were no documentation standards at that time, and there seems to be no proper affiliation to a university or any other credible source. A study can only yield credible results when several diverse populations are tested. The samples must be large enough to be representative. Here, in the fashion typical to the times, the test subjects were Caucasian and male. Who's to know that they didn't eat something that had carbs?
  Up until this point, I have not found any scholarly, modern evidence that an all-meat diet can possibly be beneficial. I mean, this web page claimed that scurvy can be treated with meat! where do you get vitamin C from meat?!

  • Report
  

  by Meg on April 11th, 2010

• I guess these people do not constitute for you credible source;
  
  American Museum of Natural History: Dr. Clark Wissler.
  Cornell University Medical College: Dr. Walter L. Niles.
  Harvard University: Drs. Lawrence J. Henderson, Earnest A. Hooton, and Percy Howe.
  Institute of American Meat Packers: Dr. C. Robert Moulton.
  John Hopkins University: Drs. William G. McCallum and Raymond Pearl.
  Russell Sage Institute of Pathology: Drs. Eugene F. DuBois and Graham Lusk.
  University of Chicago: Dr. Edwin O. Jordan.
  Unattached: Dr. Clarence W. Lieb, private practice, and Vilhjalmur Stefansson.
  
  The Chairman of the committee was Dr. Pearl. The main research work of the experiment was headed by Dr. DuBois, who is now Physician-in-Chief of the New York Hospital and was then as he still is, Medical Director of the Russell Sage Institute of Pathology. Among his collaborators were Dr. Walter S. McClellan, Dr. Henry B. Richardson, Mr. V. R. Rupp, Mr. G. F. Soderstrom, Dr. Henry J. Spencer, Dr. Edward Tolstoi, Dr. John C. Torrey and Mr. Vincent Toscani. The clinical supervision was in charge of Dr. Lieb.
  
  If Harvard and John Hopkins don't meet your standards, well, I don't know what to tell you.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 12th, 2010

• "Who's to know that they didn't eat something that had carbs?"
  From "Adventures in Diet" page 2;
  
  Now we were placed under lock and key. Neither of us was permitted at any time, day or night to be out of sight of a doctor or nurse. This was in part the ordinary rigidity of a controlled scientific experiment, but it was in some part a bow to the skepticism of the mixed diet advocates and to the emotional storms which were sweeping the vegetarian realms.
  
  Is that good enough for you? I'll bet not. No amount of evidence can get a stubborn person to change their mind. As that is obviously the case here I shall cease commenting further.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 12th, 2010

• I'm certainly not stubborn. It's just that I study physiology at a reputable university and this goes against EVERYTHING I have learned so far. If any of my textbooks said that eating an all meat diet is good for you, and explained how, then I would believe it in a second. What I'm learning is being taught to medical students everywhere, so I just don't understand how your theory could work.
  
  The study is still too old to be credible, and it was ONE study. If I cited one article done in the 1930s in one of my thesis papers to prove a point, the professor would probably laugh at me and use my essay as scrap paper from then on. As soon as you can find several credible, current sources that can explain how this is possible, I cannot accept it or teach it to my future patients.

  • Report
  

  by Meg on April 12th, 2010

Comments

• The supporters of "saving the planet" are consistent. The way to deal with skeptics is to declare the debate over and refuse to leave it open for discussion. It doesn't matter if we're talking about global warming or vegetarian diets.
  This is a common tactic employed by those who are wrong but can't back down because they've invested too much of their life into a cause.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on April 9th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments