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

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.

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...!

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.