What do you mean by "eliminating carbs"? Aren't carbs a necessity?

[Anonymous]

There is nothing inherently unhealthy about a Paleo/primal diet. I eat yummy organic veggies, grass fed meats, some dairy, and fruit. And coffee, which is it's own food group. I don't eat grains, sugar, nasty highly processed crap, and candy. What am I missing? Nothing.

[Anonymous]

Jason, I appreciate your posts too. I'm a new poster in this thread, and saw your post about wanting people to focus on health rather than weight loss, and I hear you. The problem is it sometimes doesn't work. I have progressively gained weight through my thirties without changing my eating, and with modest exercise through that time. As a young woman (teens and early twenties) I was a very serious rower and lifted 4 times a week in addition to daily rows or runs. I was still not at all lean, despite all that healthy activity. I have always been a pretty sensible eater, lots of veggies, etc. And yet I've always struggled with my weight, until at 40 it became a problem for my health. I had already tried weight watchers, moderation in different forms, and nothing seemed to work. What did work for me was a conscious push to lose 40 pounds by dropping sugar and flour, primarily. I also upped my exercise from walking and gardening to running two miles twice a week, but that hardly is enough to account for my weight loss. Anyway, that kicked the 40 pounds. Now at a healthier weight I am able to eat moderate amount of sugar and flour again without gaining weight and I can focus on just being healthy, exercise, and moderate eating...but that didn't help me lose the weight, and the weight had to be lost for health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing inherently unhealthy about a Paleo/primal diet. I eat yummy organic veggies, grass fed meats, some dairy, and fruit. And coffee, which is it's own food group. I don't eat grains, sugar, nasty highly processed crap, and candy. What am I missing? Nothing.

As I posted upthread, paleo/primal was at one time expressly low-carb, and is now sometimes low-carb by default (you may have to plan out how to eat a certain amount of carbs when you don't eat grains, white potatoes, etc.). For some people, a low-carb diet can suppress your thyroid function. Monitor your level of health and overall well-being and, in a year or two, take stock of how you feel. You can continue on as you have been or modify your diet, as needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You will die on a NO-carb diet. Your body needs some carbs. You can do low carb, even extremely low carb, but not no carb.

And Israeli cous cous is not healthier than regular cous cous, the "pearl" size is just bigger.

This statement is absolute baloney. The Inuit ate nothing but meat and fat for nearly all months of the year and they were incredibly healthy ... Until they began trading with Europeans for white flour, sugar, etc. Same with the Masai. And they did not develop scurvy because the body recycles the small amount of vitamin C it obtains from meat. Eating carbohydrates increases the amount of vitamin C your body needs beyond what you can get without eating fruit.

Because the average American eats about 350 grams of carbs a day, eating "low carb" could be defined as eating 100 grams a day, a level which would not put you in nutritional ketosis but would be very helpful in lowering blood glucose and insulin levels and thus reduce body fat over time. The key as noted by others is to make those 100 grams be very nutritious rather than reserve them for sugar, flour, and so forth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You will die on a NO-carb diet. Your body needs some carbs. You can do low carb, even extremely low carb, but not no carb.

And Israeli cous cous is not healthier than regular cous cous, the "pearl" size is just bigger.

Well, we're all going to die, but can you give some scientific reason why a no-carb diet is a killer? My guess is that a person could get along very well on just meat and eggs.

Scurvy is just one of the many diseases you'd quickly get if you cut all vegetables and fruit from your diet, and those have at least some carbs.

There's really no such thing as a "no carb" diet - even eggs have 1g of carbs each.

Again, not accurate. The traditional Inuit diet kept them very healthfully alive on basically zero carbs. I wouldn't like to eat like that (and I can maintain my weight with meat, dairy, fruits and veg, so I don't have to.).

[Anonymous]

present_tense wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

present_tense wrote:Thanks, 10:02, for your helpful response. On the face of it, this doesn't sound like a healthy way to go given the nutrients we get from fruits and vegetables.

I feel like I'm fighting a battle I can't win against the "lose weight" instead of "get healthy" mentality. I get the impulse to force change we can see, but losing weight is only one of several health concerns we ought to have.

Gonna read the sources you posted. Thanks again.

Jason

I'm the one who posted the keto links and I'm guilty of focusing on losing weight instead of getting healthy. I'm sure it's flawed thinking, but I feel like if I can just lose those 40-50 lbs, then I'll start being healthy.

You're not alone, and on one level, I understand the thinking. I just want to challenge you to think long-term. If you can learn how to live a healthier lifestyle--including nutrition, fitness, sleep, and stress--then you can live that lifestyle the rest of your life. And I promise you, I truly promise you, that the weight will slowly come off as you get healthier. It might not feel as dramatic as some of those before and after pictures, but I've seen what happens when people take the slower, more sustainable route. They change their lives forever, and they look good doing it. Better than they ever thought they could.

I appreciate your honesty. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help, or convince you of my way of thinking.

Jason

NP. Honestly, I appreciate your tone, but in my experience, like that of the other PP, you're flat out wrong. I usually eat about 80-90% whole foods, cooked at home, from as scratch as practically possible (I do use canned tomatoes, for instance), with two servings of different veggies, and while I'm not running or doing cardio, I walk everyday and care for two children ages 3 and 3 months. Basically, my diet and fitness focus on health. My weight has only trended up in the past few years and it's going to take some serious focus to even get south of 200. It's just a real pisser to be told, repeatedly, that if only I did this my body would do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

present_tense wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

present_tense wrote:Thanks, 10:02, for your helpful response. On the face of it, this doesn't sound like a healthy way to go given the nutrients we get from fruits and vegetables.

I feel like I'm fighting a battle I can't win against the "lose weight" instead of "get healthy" mentality. I get the impulse to force change we can see, but losing weight is only one of several health concerns we ought to have.

Gonna read the sources you posted. Thanks again.

Jason

I'm the one who posted the keto links and I'm guilty of focusing on losing weight instead of getting healthy. I'm sure it's flawed thinking, but I feel like if I can just lose those 40-50 lbs, then I'll start being healthy.

You're not alone, and on one level, I understand the thinking. I just want to challenge you to think long-term. If you can learn how to live a healthier lifestyle--including nutrition, fitness, sleep, and stress--then you can live that lifestyle the rest of your life. And I promise you, I truly promise you, that the weight will slowly come off as you get healthier. It might not feel as dramatic as some of those before and after pictures, but I've seen what happens when people take the slower, more sustainable route. They change their lives forever, and they look good doing it. Better than they ever thought they could.

I appreciate your honesty. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help, or convince you of my way of thinking.

Jason

NP. Honestly, I appreciate your tone, but in my experience, like that of the other PP, you're flat out wrong. I usually eat about 80-90% whole foods, cooked at home, from as scratch as practically possible (I do use canned tomatoes, for instance), with two servings of different veggies, and while I'm not running or doing cardio, I walk everyday and care for two children ages 3 and 3 months. Basically, my diet and fitness focus on health. My weight has only trended up in the past few years and it's going to take some serious focus to even get south of 200. It's just a real pisser to be told, repeatedly, that if only I did this my body would do that.

But you're not telling us the whole story. How many calories a day are you taking in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

present_tense wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

present_tense wrote:Thanks, 10:02, for your helpful response. On the face of it, this doesn't sound like a healthy way to go given the nutrients we get from fruits and vegetables.

I feel like I'm fighting a battle I can't win against the "lose weight" instead of "get healthy" mentality. I get the impulse to force change we can see, but losing weight is only one of several health concerns we ought to have.

Gonna read the sources you posted. Thanks again.

Jason

I'm the one who posted the keto links and I'm guilty of focusing on losing weight instead of getting healthy. I'm sure it's flawed thinking, but I feel like if I can just lose those 40-50 lbs, then I'll start being healthy.

You're not alone, and on one level, I understand the thinking. I just want to challenge you to think long-term. If you can learn how to live a healthier lifestyle--including nutrition, fitness, sleep, and stress--then you can live that lifestyle the rest of your life. And I promise you, I truly promise you, that the weight will slowly come off as you get healthier. It might not feel as dramatic as some of those before and after pictures, but I've seen what happens when people take the slower, more sustainable route. They change their lives forever, and they look good doing it. Better than they ever thought they could.

I appreciate your honesty. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help, or convince you of my way of thinking.

Jason

NP. Honestly, I appreciate your tone, but in my experience, like that of the other PP, you're flat out wrong. I usually eat about 80-90% whole foods, cooked at home, from as scratch as practically possible (I do use canned tomatoes, for instance), with two servings of different veggies, and while I'm not running or doing cardio, I walk everyday and care for two children ages 3 and 3 months. Basically, my diet and fitness focus on health. My weight has only trended up in the past few years and it's going to take some serious focus to even get south of 200. It's just a real pisser to be told, repeatedly, that if only I did this my body would do that.

But you're not telling us the whole story. How many calories a day are you taking in?

Read Good Calories Bad Calories ... A calorie is not a calorie because your body does different things metabolically with different types of calories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So basically, all those things you want to eat? Carbs.

No bread, no rice, no pasta, no potatoes.

I eat a lot of eggs, meat, avocados, berries in moderation. Hard cheeses. Lots of veggies, except things like carrots and butternut squash. Natural peanut butter in moderation, same with high-quality dark chocolate.

This. You can get high quality and enough carbs from avacado and other veggies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks. But I'm still waiting for this answer... I KNOW carbs are necessity in one's diet. That's a fact. What are the good ones, the ones I don't necessarily have to avoid, but will be eating in moderation?

Eat all veggies except carrots, tomatoes, beets and high sugar veggies. Don't eat fruit, sugar or flour. If you feel cravings, high fat food like cheese, avocados and salmon are satisfying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks. But I'm still waiting for this answer... I KNOW carbs are necessity in one's diet. That's a fact. What are the good ones, the ones I don't necessarily have to avoid, but will be eating in moderation?

Fruits are carbs that are good for you in moderation. Lots of healthy vitamins that cancel out the sugar. Carbs are not necessity-- your body can make glucose from fat and protein.

This. I've been doing keto-adapted and have never felt so satisfied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are some great books about this topic. I just read "Wheat Belly" which is about eliminating carbs, particularly wheat. No it is not the building block of your diet. Remember that the US is one of the leading producers of both wheat and milk -- so of course we push eating that. Does not mean it is good for you. In this book he talks about eliminating carbs. He veers a bit too far toward "if you were a diabetic..." but there is a load of great info in there. Carbs are in so many foods, so eliminating them entirely is pretty tough. But you can always cut back...!

European American settlers have been consuming wheat and milk in the USA since 1750-1800 without incident. Without being "pushed."

Also, without being fat, and sporting a "wheat belly" or whatever the hell that is.

Do you think Pa Ingalls worried about "wheat belly" on the Great Plains? Or Abe Lincoln -- while in Illinois, would you guess that he stuck to an eggs and meat diet, or might he have eaten some toast, do you think? If he ate toast, who "pushed" him to eat that milled local wheat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ketogenic diets have less than 10g (or 20g or 50g) so that your body is in ketosis. Since the three macronutrients are protein, fats, and carbs, if you eliminate carbs, then you will eat high-protein and high-fat.

Some people do a ketogenic diet indefinitely, but a lot of women need 100g of carbs for proper thyroid function, so they would only be in ketosis for months until they've achieved the desired weight loss.

OP here. Okay, I am hypothyroid and take .88 mcg daily to maintain my TSH. Would low carb mess with this? Because it's taken me a while to stabilize my TSH, and I don't want to jeopardize that.

I want to do what's sustainable for me and not have unrealistic expectations about what I can resist. I do know from the depths of my soul that I WILL want to eat toast!!! There's no use fooling myself. Like I said, I CAN resist pasta and don't even keep it in my home.

Check out the coconut ketogenic diet for healthy thyroid function.

[Anonymous]

present_tense wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

present_tense wrote:Maybe some basic info will help. Carbohydrates are one of the three primary "macronutrients," along with protein and fat. A macronutrient is simply a major nutrient group.

The process of digesting carbohydrates breaks down complex forms of the macronutrient into simpler forms of sugar so they can be released into your bloodstream as glucose.

Your body needs glucose, so part of your intuition is correct: you do need to consume carbohydrates.

You do need glucose, but you don't need to get it from carbohydrates in your diet.

Fat and protein can both be converted into glucose if necessary through a process called gluconeogenesis.

I'm trying to understand the point you're trying to make with this, because gluconeogenesis is not necessarily always a good thing. This is the process, as you correctly point out, of converting glucose from protein. But if your body's using protein instead of carbohydrates for glucose, then it isn't using that protein to build muscle; muscle is exactly what we want if we're concerned about body composition. This is precisely why low carb diets aren't advised for people who also are strength training (which should be everyone given the non-aesthetic benefits of it). (And by strength training I essentially mean any progressive resistance weight-bearing exercise, including yoga).

The other thing that confuses me about your post is that I don't think you're advocating a diet composed solely of proteins and fats, to the exclusion of things like vegetables and fruits. But I can't quite pin down what you're trying to say.

So, while you are technically correct that the body can cannibalize muscle to produce the glucose it needs to conduct its business, this isn't really a practical way of looking at it. But I concede I may be missing your point. I also concede that I'm hitting the outer limits of my cellular-level understanding of metabolism. Can you elaborate?

Finally, this discussion is why I always advocate people driving to be more fit rather than losing weight. If we focus on losing weight, then things like ultra-low carb diets seem to make good sense. But if we focus on health, strength, mobility--and dare I say virility, then carbs are essential. They are far less essential than the standard role they've come to play in the American diet, but they are essential nonetheless.

Jason

The body can burn stored fat to produce glucose. This is what happens in times of long-term fasting, if one has ample fat supplies (as so many people nowadays do!)

We do not require carbohydrates to produce glucose to live.

Yes of course, we should eat fruits and vegetables for necessary vitamins and minerals.

[Anonymous]

A long-term ketogenic diet can help some people with epilepsy. It's true that you can live while eating very few carbs.

But I've heard the comparison that a fat-burning body is similar to the steam engine and a carb-burning body is similar to the combustion engine, faster, more energy efficient, more powerful.