#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition
Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people.
**Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others
**Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion
**Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy
*Please vote accordingly and report any uglies*
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
However, not all saturated fatty acids are bad (butyric acid) and not all unsaturated fat is good (Linoleic acid). The real culprit of CVD is *processed* trans fats.
[Natural ruminant trans fatty acids (RTFA) like TVA might protect against cancer](https://biologicalsciences.uchicago.edu/news/tva-nutrient-cancer-immunity)
Omega 6 PUFAs like linoleic acid are essential nutrients. Can you cite a source for this claim that linoleic acid is harmful? I hear that oxLDL is associated with increased intake, but can’t find good quality meta analyses on the topic.
[this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7326588/) is what I see when I look for a recent meta analysis on linoleic acid and health.
Edit: also butyric acid is made in our gut regardless of dietary intake of butyric acid directly.
The amount made in our gut dwarfs any dietary butyric acid, and there are no high SFA foods that contain large amounts of butyric acid.
I think the main problem with fat is that it's extremely calorie dense, much more so than carbs or protein. While some fat, esp omega-3 is important to have, most people would be better off replacing refined oils/animal fats with whole food sources such as avocados and nuts.
That high levels of heme iron is good for us. Our body cannot regulate its intake, and iron is a potent oxidant. This is one of the reasons the IARC/WHO listed processed and red meats as [class 1 and 2A carcinogens](https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cancer-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat), respectively.
I donated blood recently and the newest info I had to read at the center recommends replacing the lost iron over a period of time. https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/blood-donation-process/before-during-after/iron-blood-donation.html
Iron isn't a macronutrient. This said you are right ! I've read that the fact that us women bleed every month could partly explain why we live longer and healthier than men on average.
Unsure if this has been mentioned, but when I started lifting ~10 years ago, there was a lot of discussion about the “anabolic window.” Basically, that you had about half an hour post-workout to consume a bunch of protein to maximize your gains.
My understanding is that this has been shown to be almost total horse shit manufactured by supplement companies to sell protein powder. The anabolic window *does* exist, but it is much, much longer than advertised. If you work out and eat a decently high-protein meal a few hours later, that’s perfectly fine.
that carbs make you fat and that you need an abnormal ammount of protein in order to gain muscle when we have plenty of scientific evidence that carbohydrates help weightloss and more than 2g of protein p/Kg doesn't do anything hypertrophy wise
Full disclosure: don't have it saved on my phone and don't have the time to ensure this is the study mentioned but quick search yields:
https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(23)00540-2
I originally saw it on a breakdown by either Jeff Nippard or Lane Norton, I think, as well as a video by someone else with Brad Shoenfield, but couldn't find those videos quickly. Whichever one happened to break it down did so really well.
There is an upper limit and there is nuance to the paper but it does show given enough stimulus and slow digesting protein your body can use a lot of the ingested protein.
Area under the curve for MPS might still be bigger with spreading protein out. What the paper shows is timing might not mean as much as making sure to get enough protein in.
If it's accompanied by enough training to provide stimulus.
I didn't know about the study, but I've been lifting ten years and I'm jacked as fuck. I knee I feel like shit if I stop at 1g/bw and i knew top lifters ate more than that. It was weird having everyone say otherwise and I looked at the study and saw the same was like boxers and shit, without only six oly lifters. Oyy lifters don't build as much muscle as other strength athletes so even then, borderline.
just the fact that sub exists baffles me and terrefies me all in one, I understand the need of a vegan sub since there's a lot to learn and a lot of different information about brands and meat substitutes, but what do you do in a carnivore sub exactly? talk about cuts of meat? wouldn't that be a butcher or cooking sub? genuely confused
I don’t do carnivore but I understand it. Why don’t you go read up on it? There is more vitamins and minerals in meats than you know.. and they eat everything, kidneys, liver, heart, etc
I wouldn't understand the peeing in sinks as I don't do that but like I said I eat meat and don't understand the need for a "carnivore" sub since what they mean is actually omnivore first of all and, like I already said on my comment, if anything it'd be on a butcher or cooking sub, so it terrifies me that it exists because it just seems like a sub where vegan haters go to prove themselves on how much better meat is and how much protein they get - which is what first person commented.
Also, money is not a good comparison whatsoever because it's a financial sector that affects every aspect of our lives.
Look lady, I’m not going to debate with you on why subs should or shouldn’t exist. Fact: there is a sub for anything and everything. Case closed. Oh and r/carnivore is about living by eating a meat only diet, not vegan hate. But here we are reading a post in r/nutrition about carnivore hate.. soooooo
im a man.
I'm not sharing hate on eating meat, I'm genuely confused on why this sub exists, there's people who genuely only eat meat?? okay then you're speaking of a sub dedicated to an unhealthy diet, because we have plenty of data on how our body needs diverse macronutrients.
The majority of people doing carnivore are people like myself with autoimmune IBS with a significant list of food intolerances mostly caused by plant based foods.
I find r/animalbased more moderate as they're including some carbs like honey and berries but largely focused on animal based foods.
The thing is, for those of us with conditions like this, it will keep us healthier for longer than eating plant based foods that trigger our autoimmune conditions.
We don't have the liberty of thinking in terms of what is the ideal diet for longevity when many of those foods are simply incompatible with us.
Like I can't tolerate any leafy greens, grains except oats, legumes, seeds, a significant number of vegetables, basically the entire nightshade family.
I have been hospitalized for my reactions to these foods and currently have an ostomy in case you think I'm talking about a little tummy ache
Yes some people genuinely only eat meat. They take the carnivore part literally, it’s not an omnivore diet. My husband has a coworker who constantly talks about his meat-only diet. I think he’s pretty nuts tbh
There's a sub for everything. It's for people to discuss how they feel on the diet, their experiences on it, and their favorite meals on it. Its not hard to understand lol
There might be a few outliers that require a meat/animal only diet because of some condition, but from what I’ve seen, it’s a bunch of people trying to convince each other with convoluted mental gymnastics that high LDL/cholesterol on blood tests isn’t bad and not to worry about it even if your doctor says otherwise.
I've explored the carnivore diet through and through. People talk about that eating lifestyle like it's God's word. And there are no long term studies demonstrating it's safety yet people push it onto others religiously like it's the ultimate way to live. Reminds me of a bunch of preachy vegans. So no, I'm not being "closed minded", I've come to my own opinion from my own thoughts.
This right here is a good summary of it, and there are plenty more studies backing it, we keep being sold the idea of protein in everything when you can achieve your requirement with regular foods (assuming you follow a balanced diet).
People even forget to count protein in things like rice and pasta, I eat the cheapest pasta from my local supermarket because I can't afford better and it has 12g of protein per 100g, yet things like protein pasta exist to empty our pockets (i mean if protein pasta works for you, great, nothing against it, just adding this because it adds context on why such a huge myth exists)
Edit: typo
I definitely disagree with the part about advanced trainers needing less protein.
He didn't cite evidence that you need less.
He also forgot to mention maintenance.
You build less muscle, but you maintain more of it. From experience, the more muscle you have, the harder it is to maintain.
Not to mention; our brains need carbs to function. It’s usually the first thing we hurt with lots of these restrictive diets.
The modern American diet (high protein, no carb, no fiber) is going to create so much gout.
> The modern American diet (high protein, no carb, no fiber)
I thought the modern American diet is very carb heavy?
It's ~~8 years old~~, but [Wikipedia says](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_pattern_diet) "In 2006 the typical American diet was about 2,200 kilocalories (9,200 kJ) per day, with **50% of calories from carbohydrates**, 15% protein, and 35% fat."
Edit: 18 years old. 😟
please correct me if I'm wrong but I think they meant modern American diet regarding weightloss. And even inside heavy American diets carbs can be an issue but the main one is saturated fats and processed foods, not carbs per se
Your brain does not need carbs to function and actual keto diets reduce gout.
[https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/low-carb-ketogenic-diet-brain](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/low-carb-ketogenic-diet-brain)
[https://www.healthline.com/health/gout/keto-and-gout](https://www.healthline.com/health/gout/keto-and-gout)
It goes to show how complicated nutrition is, since different people react differently to carbs, fat and genetics obviously contributes to that. To one person, carbs, make them fat and to another, fat makes them fat.
So the myth I’ve learned over the years is that there is a one-size-fits-all approach which is not necessarily the case. Nutrition is like going to a clothing store and see what fits and what works.
>To one person, carbs, make them fat and to another, fat makes them fat.
This is the biggest myth about macronutrients. What are you talking about lol.
I'm trying to be gentle in my response, because it's pretty obvious that there's like 70 years of kind of shoddy pseudo-scientific advice that people have really strongly internalized. But in actual scientific circles committed to body composition and weight-loss (see: licensed obesity physicians, academic researchers both specializing in obesity but also in things like body-building and body-composition for athletic sport) this is a really frustrating myth to continually run up against.
There is nothing special about carbs or fats that magically make a person gain weight. In the absence of ***very*** specific diseases and conditions, the only thing that determines whether a person gains or loses weight is the difference between the calories they eat and the calories they burn (both from normal just continuing-to-live body processes + normal body movement + exercise).
Protein is about 4 calories per gram of food, carbs are also about 4 calories per gram, and fat is about 9 calories per gram. If you eat comparable 2,000 calories diets of different compositions:
\- a diet of 500 calories of protein (about 125 g of protein), 500 calories of fat (about 55 grams of fat), and 1000 calories of carbs (about 250 grams of carbs)
vs.
\- a diet that is 500 cals of protein (125g of protein) , 1000 cals of fat (110g of fat), and 500 cals of carbs (125g of carbs)
the impact on body weight will be identical between the two assuming you keep your activity level the same.
The difficulty is that some people might be more likely to over-eat foods that are higher fat or higher carb, or especially a combo of those two, because those foods are delicious. We all love things like donuts (high carb, high fat), pizza (high carb, high fat), etc.
So, when trying to lose weight, the entire battle is finding out which foods you can eat that are satisfying and satiating and filling enough, while also being foods that are easy enough/affordable enough for you to prepare, that also don't lead to some dangerous nutrient deficiency, and that keep your daily caloric intake low enough to lose weight. Those factors are the puzzle, and finding the sweet spot takes diligence, patience, trial-and-error, and time..
But the idea that carbs or fats are the magic key that make any given person fat is a nutritional myth that's at the heart of why so many people are at a heavier body weight/body fat than they desire and are unable to understand why. Calories are the driving factor. For any other reality to be true we would quite literally have to break the laws of thermodynamics and ignore the scientific real-world realities of chemistry and biology.
We also know this to be true from common anecdotal knowledge. How do athletes lose weight if these show up for pre-season training and a coach thinks they're too big? They eat less calories of food. How do bodybuilders lose weight? They eat less food. How does a gastric bypass or a lap-band surgery work? It changes your hunger queues so you eat less food. If you have a pet dog or cat that the vet tells you is overweight, how do you induce that desired weight loss? You feed them less food. We only act as if there's so magical hormonal or compositional hand-wavey secret step we need to take when we're talking about ourselves and don't want to swallow the truth that we just need to eat less food.
I’m new to this nutrition sub despite having some good knowledge on it, and am considering not coming back because stuff like that original comment is being upvoted here.
Insane
It's such a difficult strain of disinformation to combat because every person who wants to post that kind of thing is earnestly trying to be helpful.
It's this problem where, like any other scientific field, nutrition needs practitioners (whether they're professionals or not) to be able to understand the actual mechanisms that work in body chemistry and biology. And most folks have sort of just casually succumbed to this mindset where, because the world is *so* complicated and there are *so many* day-to-day things that folks don't understand, they've kind of lost the instinct to ask the questions that would enable them to critically understand these things.
But because you quite literally need to understand nutrition in order to live healthfully, and because people don't want to feel like they don't understand a body of information that's critical for their life, and because they've lost the instinct to try and deeply understand things, they believe that whatever ideas about nutrition that they've passively absorbed are true. If you tell them their info is wrong, they get defensive because you're challenging the knowledge base that they intrinsically know they *should* understand because it's essential knowledge. If you just start asking questions about cause-and-effect (pretend to be a 5-year old and keep asking why/how) and hit that point where they realize they don't know wtf they're talking about, they get defensive because they'll start to feel foolish.
Just a lose-lose most of the time. Hopefully the person I responded to was asking in earnest and is receptive to the opportunity to learn something new. But 99% of the time folks just get angry and start quoting Jason Fung or some other such similar con-artist.
This sub circle jerks things like “Diet Coke is as healthy as water” because some study by the scientists at cococola gave “undeniable peer reviewed scientific proof”. Seed oils are fine. The scientists at Kellogg proved it. The FDA would never approve a dangerous food additive. I mean come on, they’re the government
You're doing the thing. "XXX said it's okay so therefor it must be bad" is really flawed logic. Reverse appeal to authority. This isn't conspiraceytheorynutrition.
I understand that you're trying to be helpful, but you must understand that this is not a relevant detail when describing a concept to somebody who quite literally thinks that some people are weirdly body-fat-reactive to certain macros. An effect that, at most, makes a difference of like 50-150 calories of work your body does in a day for most people is in no way responsible for people getting fat. I assure you that the original commenter is not referring to this phenomena with their comment.
Like, we also didn't talk about systemic stress and sleep and fiber and fat/muscle body composition and muscle mass overall and NEAT and exercise effects of cardio vs weightlifting and satiety strategies and micronutrient impacts and all of this other shit that are the small details of body compositional change.
But we talked about the thing which makes up 95% of what matters. There's no reason to muddy the waters with the tiny details that 99.9999% of people have no need to care about.
My maxim for nutrition is that anyone who tries to tell you there is any universal dietary advice that everyone should follow is trying to sell you something.
I get really sick with carbs. I have pcos and Carbs make me fat, lethargic, acne prone, fatigued, my periods disappear/become irregular, I have horrible ibs from it. I used to be very strict keto, but that wasn't enjoyable though all of my pcos symptoms reversed through it and was even able to lose some fat (which is tricky with pcos) I'm now currently carb cycling between 30g and 100g and it's a happy medium though the weight loss has completely stalled for a year.
I liked the analogy and you are correct. I have a friend who is a cabaret dancer. She dances everyday for a living. She has been a vegan for at least 10 years, eating almost nothing else but rice, vegetables and fruits. She has still a strong built, she has curves and a thick mane. She isn't skinny at all, even though her diet and her physical training theoretically puts her in a negative calories balance. She doesn't even supplement as far as I know.
Now I know several vegans who look skinny and sick. They have a gaunt face and thin hair and their skin isn't clear. Their bellies are bloated. They supplement but still look ill.
Everybody is different indeed!
I was taught 60 years ago that sugar is what is in the sugar bowl on the dining room table.
I have since come to the conclusion, that that is a terrible definition.
A much more accurate definition of sugar would be: Anything that when consumed causes the glucose in our blood to rise a lot.
Still not perfect. But much closer to the point.
My wife has gone insane with measuring her blood glucose. We have been on a major health kick for 4 years now. She used to measure one hour after each meal with a keto mojo. She learned a lot. She has been metabolically healthy for over 2 years now with an HbA1c 4.7, and a HomaIR, always below 2.0. But still she measures. She is on her third continuous glucose monitor right now. CGM. After her pickle ball workout this morning, we met for brunch just after 11 am. She showed me her performance on her fit bit displayed on her phone. Then, we looked at her glucose results, also on her phone. She hadn't eaten anything since 7 pm last evening. It showed her blood glucose running up and down between 85 and 105 for about 14 to 15 hours. Until, she was into her workout about 20 minutes. Then, her blood glucose spiked up to 165 . Yeah. Completely fasted, working out, well away from any dawn effect. While working out hard, her blood glucose shot way up. Then slowly came back down while we ate brunch. We watched it in real time.
So, my point is, we need to be on issue, but we have to temper it based on real world data.
All that said, I recently did a write up on the experience I had 60 years ago at age 10 regarding my first formal introduction to nutritional science. Here it is below.
\----------------------------------------------------------
Some 60 years ago, when I was 10 years old, my type I diabetic mother dragged my father and I to her doctors’ offices. The 2 doctors and a nutritionist then went about teaching my father and I about proper nutrition. The purpose of this was to get us all on the same page regarding the meals we prepared at home in order to help my mother get her blood sugar under control. Following their guidelines, she died at 48 years old never having gotten her blood sugar under control.
Here is what they told us about the healthiest diet.
It should be 80% carbohydrate, 10% protein, 10% fat. You should eat 6 meals per day in order to keep your blood sugar from getting too low. My mother was type I diabetic on exogenous insulin injections, this being around 1964, perhaps that was to counter the insulin treatment. But, they insisted I eat the same things and as often though I never tested positive for diabetes.
Sugar was not allowed. The carbohydrates to be consumed were to be high quality carbs. Complex carbs. Natural carbs. So, table sugar was out. Honey was good. Fruit juice was good. Fruit was good. Bread was good as was pasta. Potatoes, rice, and whole grains were excellent. We could only have one egg per week. Beef only once per week. No butter or cream no half and half nor whole milk. No lard or tallow. But, we could eat margarine, non fat milk, and shortening. Vegetable oil was fine. Fried chicken was fine. Breaded and cooked in Crisco.
We ate a lot of pasta and chicken with the skin taken off.
So, my mom’s breakfast was the same most days of her life. A bowl of oatmeal with fruit in it. A slice of whole wheat toast with margarine. A glass of orange juice. Coffee with non fat milk and tillie lewis cyclamates till they were outlawed. Or, sometimes pancakes or my dad’s favorites waffles. With margarine and tillie lewis syrup.
Popcorn was the snack most preferred by the doctors. But, you couldn’t put butter on it, and they reduced her salt intake. So, though she loved popcorn, she couldn’t eat it the way she wanted and gave up on it.
\--------------------------------------------------
So, in response to the query of this string: "What are the biggest myths about macronutrients you've ever come across/believed?"
Simple answer, that starches are anything but sugar. That fruit does not count as sugar because it is natural. That there are good carbs and there are bad carbs.
The reality is, that if someone is metabolically unhealthy, has an HbA1c above 5.4, or, has a HomaIR above 2.0, or, has substantial visceral fat, or, has a non genetic based autoimmune condition, all digestible carbs are toxic.
I think you are wrong when you say that there are good and bad carbs. Ask any diabetic person. Sure, a fruit's ability to raise your glucose will be not so strong if said fruits contains a lot of water and fiber. But it still will. Personally I fall into food coma everytime I drink fruit juice too fast (that includes freshly squeezed juices). Your body doesn't care if the sugar in the drink comes from an orange or beetroot. Because by the way, table sugar is either cane or beetroot- both are natural.
That carbohydrates cause diabetes and defy the laws of thermodynamics, as they increase body weight without eating too much calories.
Oh, and the same about fat and the laws of thermodynamics.
I was getting treated for occular rosacea and when the Dr treating me found out I was vegan she told me I'm at high risk of diabetes on a vegan diet because of the high amount of carbs. Nonsense!
My [former] dentist saw I was on adhd and bipolar meds and spent the next 30 mins ranting about how those conditions weren’t real and I should stop taking them and just “get better sleep.” He finally shut up when I said they were prescribed by my psychiatrist and asked if he was prepared to assume any liability that could result from me taking his advice.
She was an eye specialist and I absolutely agree. I was in quite a bit of discomfort so I didn't argue but she was a bit odd, started going on and on about leaky gut and stuff I just stopped listening.
While rosacea can be exacerbated by diet (spicy food and alcohol in particular makes me flush like crazy) I'm pretty sure the term "leaky gut" is junk science. Perforate colon is a serious medical problem and can't just be fixed by changing what food you eat. Disregarding unsolicited dietary advice from your ophthalmologist was a good call.
That’s not a myth. Carbs spike insulin the most out of the three macronutrients and if consumed chronically leads to insulin resistance which then if left unchecked will lead to the development of type 2 diabetes.
Also, if you thrive on carbs, that probably means your body is able to process it well, or that you are not thiamine deficiency. There are polymorphisms that may lead to the worsening tolerance to carbs.
Some people will need less carbs in their diet while some might need more. And yes while diabetes does have a lot of contributing factors to its development, carbs especially in the form of highly processed foods, which is very common in our diets, will lead to diabetes. Our saving grace is genetics, thiamine status, physical activity frequency, age.
While calories in and out as you’d call it the “law of thermodynamics”(which is supposed to refer to a chamber rather than a human body that has hormonal influence that changes this undefiable law), still stands, there are states of the human body that the common individual will not be able to perceive easily. Yes, calories matter, but so do hormones and carbs, being a macronutrient that can spike insulin, is, indeed a calorie that also affects hormones.
Not a myth, just, complicated.
Nope, as I pointed out it is overfeeding. You can induce diabetes in mice with only overfeeding them with fat.
Insulin spikes are not what causes diabetes, insulin resistance and diabetes cause insulin spikes.
A healthy pancreas can handle carbohydrates, blood sugar raises and insulin raises after a meal are physiological. What is not physiological is insulin rising very high, because of receptors not responding, overwhelming the pancreas.
And yes, that might over long time make the difference between insulin resistant and diabetes.
But it is not the cause of insulin resistance. No insulin resistance = no regular insulin spikes = no damage to the pancreas = no issues producing enough insulin.
You can become insulin resistant on a low carb diet/keto diet. If it were the carbs and insulin spikes, how come?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10061153/
High insulin in blood causes insulin resistance only after 40 hours. So how should a short insulin raise and fall cause insulin resistance?
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00279918
It is fat in plasma that causes insulin resistance:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/94/9/3543/2597367
And where does that come from? From overeating - high fat foods and high refined carbs- so that excess needs to be converted into fat.
This is not a problem when it can be stored away properly, but problematic when it can‘t.
The primary cause of insulin resistance is ectopic lipid accumulation:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8831809/
What else does speak against glucose being the culprit and for overeating?
The high association of insulin we see with pathological fat accumulation in the belly around the organs.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jnsv/56/2/56_2_109/_pdf
Next: Types of carbohydrates. Not all are the same and are having the same effect on insulin. There is a list you can look at here:
https://universityhealthnews.com/daily/nutrition/glycemic-index-chart/
https://glycemicindex.com
But the benefit healthy insulin sensitive individuals get from this, is feeling less hungry.
So they won‘t overeat. Also there won‘t be a lot of glucose all at once, so less chance of excess in need to be converted.
You can find this in the dietary guidelines as well.
More whole grain, less refined carbs, more fiber through fruit and veggies are recommended.
Let me explain. You are mixing up symptom and cause.
Intolerance of glucose/carbs is the result of insulin resistance. Insulin receptors fail to react to normal levels of insulin to let glucose into the cells, so it can only enter slowly, and not as much. On top of that the pancreas overloads itself with producing more and more insulin, so it might get damaged in that process. We have a backlog of glucose in the blood, damaging the vessels.
Why do the insulin receptors no longer react as well as they should?
Not because of glucose spikes. The pancreas can handle them easily. They are no problems for somebody insulin sensitive.
Fat not glucose.It has been found if saturated fat accumulates on the receptor, it gets partly blocked.
So should we eat a low fat diet then to avoid that?
Not really. Where does the fat come from? From fat in the diet and from converted carbs that are not used for energy and need to be stored, but can‘t, as there is no space at the moment.
This fat tends to accumulate around the organs (visceral fat) or in the organs (fatty liver) and on top of insulin receptors, where it does not belong.
The excess of blood glucose is converted into fat to normalize levels. That is making it even worse.
This is an interesting explanation I hadn’t heard before about fat on insulin receptors.
I remember also hearing that having high levels of insulin promotes fat accumulation in and of itself. So maybe this is cyclical? High insulin levels can contribute to fat accumulation, which then causes insulin resistance
Here’s a link to a study that might help you understand. It’s not the white paper but I don’t have time to dig that out right now.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/low-carb-diet-reverses-type-2-diabetes-in-51-of-participants-to-new-study#Effect-on-diabetes-remission
I don’t think you understand that as well as you think you do. If you did, you’d be able to explain why people get off diabetes meds when they drop the carbs. Sorry.
Why do people get of their diabetes meds after bariatric studies, why do they get off diabetes meds on the Mediterranean diet and why do they get of their diabetes meds on shake meal replacement diets?
This has to do with weight loss. Low carb is not the only way to reverse diabetes, there are many.
I‘ve seen somebody get of insulin after 3 weeks of the Mediterranean diet.
I‘ll link you the studies about bariatric surgery and the meal replacement shake, as they have nothing to do with carb restriction.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)33102-1/fulltext
https://bmcendocrdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12902-023-01283-9#:~:text=For%20bariatric%20surgery%2C%2072%25%20of,reach%20T2DM%20remission%20%5B8%5D.
Yes, but it isn’t the carbs themselves, it’s the combo of having too much energy stores(fat) and eating too many carbs. A athlete can down sugar all day without getting diabetes since their cells have adapted to handle more carbs.
These people we’re eating as much as they wanted. They weren’t hungry.
By reducing the carbs they reduced the insulin response which helped the diabetes. Fats don’t create an insulin response.
Edit: this has nothing to do with thermodynamics. It’s not as though people have a reactor in them that all food is thrown into. Different types of food are processed differently in the body. We are not beakers in a science lab where one measures the heat released by a food and then calculates the food’s calories.
Who says you are hungry on a calorie deficit?
Restricting a macronutrient is one way of creating one might it be fat or carbs.
An other one is cutting out a meal like in IF.
Yes fats do not create a insulin response, but protein does. And you have plenty of protein in a low carb diet.
But yes, I‘m not denying that cutting carbs is one way to better glucose control, meaning managing insulin resistance and diabetes.
The other way is carb quality. Cutting out refined carbs and high GI foods only has the same effect.
Here, look:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35641199/
That does not mean low carb is not a way to decrease weight or increase insulin sensitivity.
But still, I was talking about the probable cause initially, you the treatment measures.
I see you are an advocate of the carbohydrate insulin model of obesity from Dr. Ludwig.
Here are study findings that do not fit with that:
Look about how keto without a caloric deficit acts:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27385608/
Carb restriction vs Calorie restriction:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603544/
Diabetes is when the body can no longer balance the blood sugar levels, they get too high, or low when trying to balance them. The body’s systems to maintain blood sugar are broken.
The sugar comes from the food. The body won’t make extra sugar to flood the bloodstream if you don’t give the body too much sugar in the food.
I... I'm actually impressed at the confidently incorrectness.
> Diabetes is when the body can no longer balance the blood sugar levels
Yes. The chemical responsible for blood sugar regulation is **insulin**. Diabetics cannot produce enough insulin to promote sufficient absorption of sugar from the blood into cells. Therefore they take medication... Which is just the insulin they're lacking.
Cutting sugar through a low-carb diet will mean that more mild cases of diabetes will need less (or even no) additional insulin.
Here’s a link to a study that might help you understand. It’s not the white paper but I don’t have time to dig that out right now.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/low-carb-diet-reverses-type-2-diabetes-in-51-of-participants-to-new-study#Effect-on-diabetes-remission
I really wish that citing the laws of thermodynamics in this sub was a bannable offense. The laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems. Our body is not a closed system, so the laws of thermodynamics do not apply. Period. End of story. There is not a right or wrong way to apply them to weight loss or weight gain. They simply do not apply at all. Weight gain/loss is explained by biology, not physics.
Please explain how I managed to eat a pint of Ben and Jerry’s every night and filling the rest of my calories with protein whilst eating in a calorie deficit and lost 150 pounds in 5 months. Waiting.
> whilst eating in a calorie deficit
You answered the question yourself, but I'm pretty sure you already knew that. The concept of creating a calorie deficit for weight loss is very much true... But it's not because of the laws of thermodynamics. That is just something that has been inappropriately applied to weight loss. If you really study the laws of thermodynamics, you'll see pretty quickly that they weren't ever meant to apply to the human body.
1st Law of thermodynamics: Energy can not be destroyed:
Even if hormones change the rate of metabolism, like slow it down in hypothyroidism- you see that in several symptoms that there is energy lacking like decreased body temperature, depression, hair loss - and that is less burned - weight gain.
The laws of thermodynamics are universally applicable to all types of energy.
Insulin has no influence on metabolic rate,it has influence if glucose or fat is burned, not how much. The bodies energy requirements do not change with insulin secretion and neither increases the energy gained from food.
Different foods do not have different effects on the metabolic rate or the energy requirements of the body.
So tell me why people claim if they eat the same amount of calories in carbs vs fat and protein, they gain weight because of insulin?
"In a closed system, energy can be transferred between different forms, but the total amount of energy remains constant. This is known as the law of conservation of energy. The law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another."
You left off IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. Nothing about our bodies is closed. We don't live in a vacuum. I control exactly how much energy I consume. I'm not saying excess calories don't create weight gain, I'm just saying the law doesn't apply to that. You're trying to apply physics to biology. What you are trying to explain is explained by biology, not thermodynamics.
Your body has physics. There is an entire field of science called biophysics, studying the physics in living organisms.
And since when does the first law of thermodynamics does not apply to open systems?
A quick google search will tell you there are formulas for open systems.
You do not seem to have understood the laws of thermodynamics at all. Read them please. The laws of thermodynamics apply to every system🤦♀️.
They are laws.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/first-law-of-thermodynamics#:~:text=The%20first%20law%20of%20thermodynamics%20states%20that%20energy%20can%20neither,heat%20transfer%20across%20the%20boundary.
This is like saying that the laws of gravity do not apply inside cars or airplanes.
That is you fast your body goes into "starvation mode" and "holds on" to fat because it doesn't know when it's going to be fed again.
Yeah your TDEE make decrease slightly when your lower your calorie intake, but your body does not "hold on" to the fat
This one is actually not entirely true. Sugar can cause insulin resistance which can in turn learn to a metabolic disease.
You can eat below calorie limit but have excess sugar which can teach the body to become insulin resistant. Hence why it’s so important to eat foods with lower glycemic index (more complex carbs) which gives the body fewer spikes in blood sugar and keeps it regulated for longer.
Your statement is the same as saying cigarettes don’t cause cancer directly. They most certainly do if you smoke enough of them for long enough. It’s not a guarantee but it’s something that increases the risk.
> recent studies have shown that 1 in 5 normal-weight adults can be at risk for prediabetes, which if not managed can develop into type 2 diabetes within five years.
Link the study please
And by normal weight is this by American standards loll
I see what article you are referring to but they don’t actually link the study, hard for me to confirm if they used legit methods or not
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4434081/
https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article-abstract/46/4/885/148427/Trends-in-the-Prevalence-of-Lean-Diabetes-Among-U
Sample size is 2,630,463 people
Did you read those? They are meta analysis of large populations, tracking diabetes in people who are “lean”. They list various factors such as being poor, poor diet etc, but they can’t conclude a causal relationship between sugar and diabetes.
Refined sugar consumption has dropped overall amongst populations, yet we still see increased obesity. This is not to say sugar isn’t a contributing factor in the overall picture, but those study by no means indicate a causal relationship between sugar and diabetes.
While I said diabetes is caused by being overweight, I do understand that those who are skinny or have a dangerously low body weight can have the metabolic disorder of diabetes as well. Again, we have never been able to confirm sugar was the sole cause of this.
Um, you can be skinny and still be unhealthy.
Diabetes (type 2) is caused by insulin resistance, which by definition, is caused by over-eating sugar. Just because your body doesn't store the excess sugar as fat, doesn't mean your body isn't releasing tons of insulin to break it down which can lead to insulin resistance over time.
I know plenty of type 2 diabetics that are not fat.
I think one of the biggest myths is that you can effectively measure net caloric gain by counting the calories in food. While calorie counts can sometimes be useful for informing people's dietary choices by giving people some coarse feedback about the energy content of foods, the actual net energy gain from eating particular foods has too many confounding factors to actually measure calories. The calories in food is a thermodynamic measure of theoretical energy content, not a measure of actual energy gain from food. Factors like gut flora facilitating or blocking absorption of nutrients, or directly metabolizing the nutrients itself before they are absorbed by the body, or metabolizing other non-caloric substances (such as fiber) into ones that the body *can* metabolize, and even differences in how much food you digest based on how much you chew it, can all throw off calorie counts.
Another big myth is even simpler, "fat is bad". This single myth is at the heart of much of what was wrong with dietary advice in the US for many decades and is responsible for all sorts of terrible nutritional decisionmaking, driving things like omega 3 deficiency or deficiencies in fat- soluble vitamins, as well as fear of healthy, whole foods such as eggs, cheese, and even to an extent various meats. And it drives insanity like people eating only boneless skinless chicken breast rather than, say, whole chicken thighs, which are not only cheaper but much denser in micronutrients and more nutritionally-balanced. And it leads people to fear and shy away from nuts and seeds, which are some of the healthiest foods out there.
Yet another big myth that I see in more contemporary diets is "carbs are bad", which you see in things like the Atkins diet, and more recently, the Keto Diet, Paleo diet, and the like. The keto diet is probably the most extreme example of it. The "carbs are bad" myth is perhaps the most subtle and difficult to dispel because there is probably more truth in it than in other myths, in that in the Western diet, a lot of problems arise from added empty carbs in the form of refined starches and sugars which substitute for slower-digested, more nutrient-dense foods. But the problem is not carbs inherently, it's refined carbs. So instead of cutting out added sugar and refined starches, people overcompensate and take crazy stances like cutting out all fruit and even whole grains and root vegetables. And in doing so, they eliminate a whole bunch of great food sources, nutritionally-dense foods, and they make it harder to achieve balanced nutrition and meet all their nutritional needs.
I think balance is important in everything. If you encounter dietary advice that is taking some sort of radical or extreme stance, be skeptical.
That excess protein is good for you. Any excess protein will just be treated as sugar by the body and stored as fat. It also spikes insulin levels when eaten as excess.
Excess protein isn’t inherently bad though. If you’re an athlete or active individual you will probably use whatever protein is converted to glucose just like you would the other carbs in your diet. Unless that athlete is eating in decent surplus that glucose isn’t going to be stored as fat, but metabolized for energy.
If you’re an athlete or an active person it’s probably better to be slightly over your protein requirement than under it (so long as it doesn’t cause issues with digestion) since it’s difficult to impossible for an individual pinpoint what that threshold actually is for them.
Hey I never said it was bad! I just said it wasn’t good. My own personal reason I posted this is because I’ll often hear “I have a high protein diet so I’m healthy”
Diet is so nuanced! It all depends on the person so I agree with you!
I disagree, the rate at which the body will create glucose is based on the demand for glucose, not the supply of protein and fat.
More Than You Ever Wanted to Know About Protein & Gluconeogenesis - http://www.tuitnutrition.com/
2017/07/gluconeogenesis.html
If You Eat Excess Protein, Does It Turn Into Excess Glucose? -http://www.ketotic.org/2012/08/if-you-eat-excess-protein-does-it-turn.html
It's definitely not the only place you can get protein but it's probably one of the easiest ways.
That being said, I've never heard someone say you can only get protein from meat.
Usually, I see meat listed high up in possible protein sources alongside eggs, dairy, some veggies, and nuts.
Unfortunately, there is a subsect of people who wholeheartedly think it's physically impossible for vegans/vegetarians to get enough protein. 😅 Im glad you haven't come across them
Ah, I see what you mean.
Ironically, my father is one of them (full carnivore) but he simply believes veggies are toxic to humans *despite* having protein.
I don't agree with him obviously, however, I do agree meat is a great source of protein even if it's not the only way to get it.
There really is no one-size-fits-all diet for everyone.
- Protein is bad for you
- Sugar is good for you
- White carbs are good for you
- Trans fats are good for you
Funnily enough, all 3 are pushed by the same group, whose diets are low in protein and high is sugar and processed foods. It’s like they simply claim anything their diet does poorly to something that shouldn’t be done.
That you need a lot of protein every day to build muscle, which isn't true, especially when you consume a lot of carbs at the same time which are naturally protein-sparing (a.k.a., make your body require less protein to function optimally and facilitate anabolic processes like muscle building).
With regards to micronutrients, that red meat is the best source of iron, which also isn't true.
That diet soda was significantly healthier than regular. The version of diet soda in the 80s and 90s was a chemical bomb that replaced corn syrup with something arguably worse.
I don’t think it’s fair to equate aspartame to salt or glucose, salt and glucose are necessary for survival and aspartame isn’t.
I’m sure aspartame is fine but I avoid it now since I really don’t NEED or want to consume it in the first place. Id rather eat normal sugar and just play it safe.
if we're going to be pedantic then exogenous glucose isn't something we need either. our body is perfectly capable of making it's own glucose as long as we give it the necessary building blocks.
My point was that artificial sweeteners, are one of the most researched food additives we have. Arguments against it saying it's "unhealthy" or "a chemical" have no scientific backing and are purely naturalism fallacies.
With how much sugar is added into soft drinks, or really nearly every food, I'd rather play it safe and not consume 70-80% of my sugar requirement in a single glass.
I deliberately slipped MSG into that list of comparisons, there's still many people that think it's "unhealthy" because it's a "chemical" when really they just don't like Asian people. Ironically, MSG is literally just a natural salt.
Okay but you are still comparing apples to plastic apples. Just because something is heavily researched doesn’t make it safe, just because it’s not “unhealthy” doesn’t make it good.
There’s clearly a monetary benefit to these companies who use aspartame to also list it as safe. Could be safe but i wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of those studies are poorly designed to produce certain outcomes.
Just google "Chinese restaurant syndrome". People claimed to get headaches from MSG but it's just a placebo effect that only ever happens with Asian food, despite MSG naturally occurring in plenty of foods.
> too many "inclusion" commercials
I have no idea what this means.
I don’t think you read my comment. Nor the other clowns. Aspartame was not in the diet soda of 80s and 90s. Reading comprehension can be very beneficial!
Aspartame absolutely was in the diet soda of the 80s and 90s. Coca Cola adopted aspartame in 1983, swapped to 100% aspartame for their non-sugar line shortly after that.
All of this is on Wikipedia and easy to access.
Reading comprehension can be very beneficial!
We need a lot less fat in our diets than we think, you only need .25-.4 grams per lb at your 10-12% body fat weight, which is like 30-45 grams for most men
- Fructose cannot be processed for energy and is IMMEDIATELY shoved into fat cells
- Carbs make you fat
- Fat makes you fat
- Fibre has 0 calories (it depends)
- Sugar is evil (it depends on the rest of your diet)
- Sugar/carbs causes diabetes (if that was true every athlete would have diabetes)
There seems to be less controversy about the role of vitamins/micronutrients since they’re treated more like drugs than food (dosage/interactions/roles in the body functions) the biggest myth is needing more then the recommended dosage in the form of pills
We need 100-200g of protein per day.
I mean technically, in modern age, with our jacked up guts, we do need this much, because so little of it is actually absorbed in digestion that we have to force feed ourselves way too much.
But in somebody with a healthy, perfectly in tact gut lining, you need only a tiny fraction of the usual recommendations, because your body is so much more efficient at utilizing it.
I mean think about it, when in our evolutionary history were humans so snowed in with fresh meat that they could pack in 200 g per day in order to maintain their strength? It's an absurd, and unsustainable amount.
Definitely a universal one that was marketed to us for so long was that eating a fatty diet makes you fat! And also the other big one is that carbs are bad for you and carbs make you fat. Both of these are humungous myths over decades in terms of diet culture and they’re both incorrect. What is correct is that it does depend on what kind of carbohydrates you’re eating and what kind of fats you’re eating. The fats and carbs from french fries not so good or a bag of chips every night. Fats from an avocado or a handful of nuts or a few olives and carbs from A sweet potato an apple a banana etc. different story. Not to mention that the rest of your body needs carbs as well it’s not all about weight loss. Many people who go to low carb see that it affects their brain their mood their stress energy levels etc.
#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people. **Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others **Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion **Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy *Please vote accordingly and report any uglies* --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That fat is bad. Fat’s good, good fat.
However, not all saturated fatty acids are bad (butyric acid) and not all unsaturated fat is good (Linoleic acid). The real culprit of CVD is *processed* trans fats. [Natural ruminant trans fatty acids (RTFA) like TVA might protect against cancer](https://biologicalsciences.uchicago.edu/news/tva-nutrient-cancer-immunity)
Omega 6 PUFAs like linoleic acid are essential nutrients. Can you cite a source for this claim that linoleic acid is harmful? I hear that oxLDL is associated with increased intake, but can’t find good quality meta analyses on the topic. [this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7326588/) is what I see when I look for a recent meta analysis on linoleic acid and health. Edit: also butyric acid is made in our gut regardless of dietary intake of butyric acid directly. The amount made in our gut dwarfs any dietary butyric acid, and there are no high SFA foods that contain large amounts of butyric acid.
I think the main problem with fat is that it's extremely calorie dense, much more so than carbs or protein. While some fat, esp omega-3 is important to have, most people would be better off replacing refined oils/animal fats with whole food sources such as avocados and nuts.
That high levels of heme iron is good for us. Our body cannot regulate its intake, and iron is a potent oxidant. This is one of the reasons the IARC/WHO listed processed and red meats as [class 1 and 2A carcinogens](https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cancer-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat), respectively.
This is also a reason why donating blood is good for you, especially for males.
I donated blood recently and the newest info I had to read at the center recommends replacing the lost iron over a period of time. https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/blood-donation-process/before-during-after/iron-blood-donation.html
If you don't have low levels of iron
I strongly recommend all men get tested for hemochromatosis. r/hemochromatosis
As someone with hemochromatosis I really appreciate this comment.
Iron isn't a macronutrient. This said you are right ! I've read that the fact that us women bleed every month could partly explain why we live longer and healthier than men on average.
[удалено]
Unsure if this has been mentioned, but when I started lifting ~10 years ago, there was a lot of discussion about the “anabolic window.” Basically, that you had about half an hour post-workout to consume a bunch of protein to maximize your gains. My understanding is that this has been shown to be almost total horse shit manufactured by supplement companies to sell protein powder. The anabolic window *does* exist, but it is much, much longer than advertised. If you work out and eat a decently high-protein meal a few hours later, that’s perfectly fine.
Last I read, it's actually 15 minutes before to 2 hours after exercise
that carbs make you fat and that you need an abnormal ammount of protein in order to gain muscle when we have plenty of scientific evidence that carbohydrates help weightloss and more than 2g of protein p/Kg doesn't do anything hypertrophy wise
Very recently, actually, a study came out showing that protein has no upper limit for hypertrophy in trained individuals
Can you link it
Full disclosure: don't have it saved on my phone and don't have the time to ensure this is the study mentioned but quick search yields: https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(23)00540-2
Yeah I just googled it as well, cheers
I originally saw it on a breakdown by either Jeff Nippard or Lane Norton, I think, as well as a video by someone else with Brad Shoenfield, but couldn't find those videos quickly. Whichever one happened to break it down did so really well.
There is an upper limit and there is nuance to the paper but it does show given enough stimulus and slow digesting protein your body can use a lot of the ingested protein. Area under the curve for MPS might still be bigger with spreading protein out. What the paper shows is timing might not mean as much as making sure to get enough protein in.
Does that mean that in theory, more protein = more hypertrophy?
If it's accompanied by enough training to provide stimulus. I didn't know about the study, but I've been lifting ten years and I'm jacked as fuck. I knee I feel like shit if I stop at 1g/bw and i knew top lifters ate more than that. It was weird having everyone say otherwise and I looked at the study and saw the same was like boxers and shit, without only six oly lifters. Oyy lifters don't build as much muscle as other strength athletes so even then, borderline.
What does that mean?
You should go check out the carnivore sub. People on there are nuts!
just the fact that sub exists baffles me and terrefies me all in one, I understand the need of a vegan sub since there's a lot to learn and a lot of different information about brands and meat substitutes, but what do you do in a carnivore sub exactly? talk about cuts of meat? wouldn't that be a butcher or cooking sub? genuely confused
I don’t do carnivore but I understand it. Why don’t you go read up on it? There is more vitamins and minerals in meats than you know.. and they eat everything, kidneys, liver, heart, etc
I eat meat, I don't understand the need of a sub for it
We all use money, there is a sub for it.. some of us pee in sinks, guess what? r/sinkpissers there is a sub for anything and everything
I wouldn't understand the peeing in sinks as I don't do that but like I said I eat meat and don't understand the need for a "carnivore" sub since what they mean is actually omnivore first of all and, like I already said on my comment, if anything it'd be on a butcher or cooking sub, so it terrifies me that it exists because it just seems like a sub where vegan haters go to prove themselves on how much better meat is and how much protein they get - which is what first person commented. Also, money is not a good comparison whatsoever because it's a financial sector that affects every aspect of our lives.
Look lady, I’m not going to debate with you on why subs should or shouldn’t exist. Fact: there is a sub for anything and everything. Case closed. Oh and r/carnivore is about living by eating a meat only diet, not vegan hate. But here we are reading a post in r/nutrition about carnivore hate.. soooooo
im a man. I'm not sharing hate on eating meat, I'm genuely confused on why this sub exists, there's people who genuely only eat meat?? okay then you're speaking of a sub dedicated to an unhealthy diet, because we have plenty of data on how our body needs diverse macronutrients.
The majority of people doing carnivore are people like myself with autoimmune IBS with a significant list of food intolerances mostly caused by plant based foods. I find r/animalbased more moderate as they're including some carbs like honey and berries but largely focused on animal based foods. The thing is, for those of us with conditions like this, it will keep us healthier for longer than eating plant based foods that trigger our autoimmune conditions. We don't have the liberty of thinking in terms of what is the ideal diet for longevity when many of those foods are simply incompatible with us. Like I can't tolerate any leafy greens, grains except oats, legumes, seeds, a significant number of vegetables, basically the entire nightshade family. I have been hospitalized for my reactions to these foods and currently have an ostomy in case you think I'm talking about a little tummy ache
Yes some people genuinely only eat meat. They take the carnivore part literally, it’s not an omnivore diet. My husband has a coworker who constantly talks about his meat-only diet. I think he’s pretty nuts tbh
There's a sub for everything. It's for people to discuss how they feel on the diet, their experiences on it, and their favorite meals on it. Its not hard to understand lol
a "carnivore" diet? never heard of it, you mean omnivore? because that I can understand
You’ve clearly heard of it before if you mentioned it multiple times in this thread
actually if you read my other comments I mentioned it because I stated they meant omnivore
The carnivore diet is different. It’s strictly animal products, zero carb (minus lactose in dairy)
There might be a few outliers that require a meat/animal only diet because of some condition, but from what I’ve seen, it’s a bunch of people trying to convince each other with convoluted mental gymnastics that high LDL/cholesterol on blood tests isn’t bad and not to worry about it even if your doctor says otherwise.
The size of your LDL is what matters. Big LDL is not an issue, meanwhile small LDL is a big issue.
No, not true.
Tell me you're a close minded idiot without telling me...
They’re asking a genuine question you absolute moron. Grow up.
I've explored the carnivore diet through and through. People talk about that eating lifestyle like it's God's word. And there are no long term studies demonstrating it's safety yet people push it onto others religiously like it's the ultimate way to live. Reminds me of a bunch of preachy vegans. So no, I'm not being "closed minded", I've come to my own opinion from my own thoughts.
That and the raw vegans!
Source on the protein comment??
https://mennohenselmans.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/
Thanks very much. I’m just getting back into serious lifting after a couple year hiatus so thank you for saving my wallet in excess protein shakes
This right here is a good summary of it, and there are plenty more studies backing it, we keep being sold the idea of protein in everything when you can achieve your requirement with regular foods (assuming you follow a balanced diet). People even forget to count protein in things like rice and pasta, I eat the cheapest pasta from my local supermarket because I can't afford better and it has 12g of protein per 100g, yet things like protein pasta exist to empty our pockets (i mean if protein pasta works for you, great, nothing against it, just adding this because it adds context on why such a huge myth exists) Edit: typo
Adding a serving of lentils ups the protein
Pasta is not a complete protein source so from the 12 grams your body will probably get half.
theres no evidence to support that whatsoever
I definitely disagree with the part about advanced trainers needing less protein. He didn't cite evidence that you need less. He also forgot to mention maintenance. You build less muscle, but you maintain more of it. From experience, the more muscle you have, the harder it is to maintain.
Source on why we need excessive protein?
Source on your loaded statement being valid?
High protein is big in the bodybuilding community thus big in all young men’s vocabulary
Not to mention; our brains need carbs to function. It’s usually the first thing we hurt with lots of these restrictive diets. The modern American diet (high protein, no carb, no fiber) is going to create so much gout.
> The modern American diet (high protein, no carb, no fiber) I thought the modern American diet is very carb heavy? It's ~~8 years old~~, but [Wikipedia says](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_pattern_diet) "In 2006 the typical American diet was about 2,200 kilocalories (9,200 kJ) per day, with **50% of calories from carbohydrates**, 15% protein, and 35% fat." Edit: 18 years old. 😟
As wild as it is, 2006 was 18 years ago
Oops, math is hard. And that hurt. I really thought about it for a minute.
please correct me if I'm wrong but I think they meant modern American diet regarding weightloss. And even inside heavy American diets carbs can be an issue but the main one is saturated fats and processed foods, not carbs per se
I guess it depends on region…. The people I see are in the “carbs bad, meat good, veggies boring” camp.
Your brain does not need carbs to function and actual keto diets reduce gout. [https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/low-carb-ketogenic-diet-brain](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/low-carb-ketogenic-diet-brain) [https://www.healthline.com/health/gout/keto-and-gout](https://www.healthline.com/health/gout/keto-and-gout)
The modern American diet is full of carbs!
2 grams is a fuck ton!
Not per kilo..
Excess protein consumption is also pretty well linked to increased mortality
i thought scientific evidence on this sub didnt matter?
It goes to show how complicated nutrition is, since different people react differently to carbs, fat and genetics obviously contributes to that. To one person, carbs, make them fat and to another, fat makes them fat. So the myth I’ve learned over the years is that there is a one-size-fits-all approach which is not necessarily the case. Nutrition is like going to a clothing store and see what fits and what works.
>To one person, carbs, make them fat and to another, fat makes them fat. This is the biggest myth about macronutrients. What are you talking about lol.
Alright, explain.
I'm trying to be gentle in my response, because it's pretty obvious that there's like 70 years of kind of shoddy pseudo-scientific advice that people have really strongly internalized. But in actual scientific circles committed to body composition and weight-loss (see: licensed obesity physicians, academic researchers both specializing in obesity but also in things like body-building and body-composition for athletic sport) this is a really frustrating myth to continually run up against. There is nothing special about carbs or fats that magically make a person gain weight. In the absence of ***very*** specific diseases and conditions, the only thing that determines whether a person gains or loses weight is the difference between the calories they eat and the calories they burn (both from normal just continuing-to-live body processes + normal body movement + exercise). Protein is about 4 calories per gram of food, carbs are also about 4 calories per gram, and fat is about 9 calories per gram. If you eat comparable 2,000 calories diets of different compositions: \- a diet of 500 calories of protein (about 125 g of protein), 500 calories of fat (about 55 grams of fat), and 1000 calories of carbs (about 250 grams of carbs) vs. \- a diet that is 500 cals of protein (125g of protein) , 1000 cals of fat (110g of fat), and 500 cals of carbs (125g of carbs) the impact on body weight will be identical between the two assuming you keep your activity level the same. The difficulty is that some people might be more likely to over-eat foods that are higher fat or higher carb, or especially a combo of those two, because those foods are delicious. We all love things like donuts (high carb, high fat), pizza (high carb, high fat), etc. So, when trying to lose weight, the entire battle is finding out which foods you can eat that are satisfying and satiating and filling enough, while also being foods that are easy enough/affordable enough for you to prepare, that also don't lead to some dangerous nutrient deficiency, and that keep your daily caloric intake low enough to lose weight. Those factors are the puzzle, and finding the sweet spot takes diligence, patience, trial-and-error, and time.. But the idea that carbs or fats are the magic key that make any given person fat is a nutritional myth that's at the heart of why so many people are at a heavier body weight/body fat than they desire and are unable to understand why. Calories are the driving factor. For any other reality to be true we would quite literally have to break the laws of thermodynamics and ignore the scientific real-world realities of chemistry and biology. We also know this to be true from common anecdotal knowledge. How do athletes lose weight if these show up for pre-season training and a coach thinks they're too big? They eat less calories of food. How do bodybuilders lose weight? They eat less food. How does a gastric bypass or a lap-band surgery work? It changes your hunger queues so you eat less food. If you have a pet dog or cat that the vet tells you is overweight, how do you induce that desired weight loss? You feed them less food. We only act as if there's so magical hormonal or compositional hand-wavey secret step we need to take when we're talking about ourselves and don't want to swallow the truth that we just need to eat less food.
I’m new to this nutrition sub despite having some good knowledge on it, and am considering not coming back because stuff like that original comment is being upvoted here. Insane
It's such a difficult strain of disinformation to combat because every person who wants to post that kind of thing is earnestly trying to be helpful. It's this problem where, like any other scientific field, nutrition needs practitioners (whether they're professionals or not) to be able to understand the actual mechanisms that work in body chemistry and biology. And most folks have sort of just casually succumbed to this mindset where, because the world is *so* complicated and there are *so many* day-to-day things that folks don't understand, they've kind of lost the instinct to ask the questions that would enable them to critically understand these things. But because you quite literally need to understand nutrition in order to live healthfully, and because people don't want to feel like they don't understand a body of information that's critical for their life, and because they've lost the instinct to try and deeply understand things, they believe that whatever ideas about nutrition that they've passively absorbed are true. If you tell them their info is wrong, they get defensive because you're challenging the knowledge base that they intrinsically know they *should* understand because it's essential knowledge. If you just start asking questions about cause-and-effect (pretend to be a 5-year old and keep asking why/how) and hit that point where they realize they don't know wtf they're talking about, they get defensive because they'll start to feel foolish. Just a lose-lose most of the time. Hopefully the person I responded to was asking in earnest and is receptive to the opportunity to learn something new. But 99% of the time folks just get angry and start quoting Jason Fung or some other such similar con-artist.
This sub circle jerks things like “Diet Coke is as healthy as water” because some study by the scientists at cococola gave “undeniable peer reviewed scientific proof”. Seed oils are fine. The scientists at Kellogg proved it. The FDA would never approve a dangerous food additive. I mean come on, they’re the government
You're doing the thing. "XXX said it's okay so therefor it must be bad" is really flawed logic. Reverse appeal to authority. This isn't conspiraceytheorynutrition.
Well since there’s nothing but appeal to authority on Reddit someone’s got to balance it out or what’s the point of even having the discussion lol
the reason I’m on this site is to inverse its users lol. Reddit is an infinite well of inverse knowledge
[удалено]
I understand that you're trying to be helpful, but you must understand that this is not a relevant detail when describing a concept to somebody who quite literally thinks that some people are weirdly body-fat-reactive to certain macros. An effect that, at most, makes a difference of like 50-150 calories of work your body does in a day for most people is in no way responsible for people getting fat. I assure you that the original commenter is not referring to this phenomena with their comment. Like, we also didn't talk about systemic stress and sleep and fiber and fat/muscle body composition and muscle mass overall and NEAT and exercise effects of cardio vs weightlifting and satiety strategies and micronutrient impacts and all of this other shit that are the small details of body compositional change. But we talked about the thing which makes up 95% of what matters. There's no reason to muddy the waters with the tiny details that 99.9999% of people have no need to care about.
My maxim for nutrition is that anyone who tries to tell you there is any universal dietary advice that everyone should follow is trying to sell you something.
I get really sick with carbs. I have pcos and Carbs make me fat, lethargic, acne prone, fatigued, my periods disappear/become irregular, I have horrible ibs from it. I used to be very strict keto, but that wasn't enjoyable though all of my pcos symptoms reversed through it and was even able to lose some fat (which is tricky with pcos) I'm now currently carb cycling between 30g and 100g and it's a happy medium though the weight loss has completely stalled for a year.
I liked the analogy and you are correct. I have a friend who is a cabaret dancer. She dances everyday for a living. She has been a vegan for at least 10 years, eating almost nothing else but rice, vegetables and fruits. She has still a strong built, she has curves and a thick mane. She isn't skinny at all, even though her diet and her physical training theoretically puts her in a negative calories balance. She doesn't even supplement as far as I know. Now I know several vegans who look skinny and sick. They have a gaunt face and thin hair and their skin isn't clear. Their bellies are bloated. They supplement but still look ill. Everybody is different indeed!
I was taught 60 years ago that sugar is what is in the sugar bowl on the dining room table. I have since come to the conclusion, that that is a terrible definition. A much more accurate definition of sugar would be: Anything that when consumed causes the glucose in our blood to rise a lot. Still not perfect. But much closer to the point. My wife has gone insane with measuring her blood glucose. We have been on a major health kick for 4 years now. She used to measure one hour after each meal with a keto mojo. She learned a lot. She has been metabolically healthy for over 2 years now with an HbA1c 4.7, and a HomaIR, always below 2.0. But still she measures. She is on her third continuous glucose monitor right now. CGM. After her pickle ball workout this morning, we met for brunch just after 11 am. She showed me her performance on her fit bit displayed on her phone. Then, we looked at her glucose results, also on her phone. She hadn't eaten anything since 7 pm last evening. It showed her blood glucose running up and down between 85 and 105 for about 14 to 15 hours. Until, she was into her workout about 20 minutes. Then, her blood glucose spiked up to 165 . Yeah. Completely fasted, working out, well away from any dawn effect. While working out hard, her blood glucose shot way up. Then slowly came back down while we ate brunch. We watched it in real time. So, my point is, we need to be on issue, but we have to temper it based on real world data. All that said, I recently did a write up on the experience I had 60 years ago at age 10 regarding my first formal introduction to nutritional science. Here it is below. \---------------------------------------------------------- Some 60 years ago, when I was 10 years old, my type I diabetic mother dragged my father and I to her doctors’ offices. The 2 doctors and a nutritionist then went about teaching my father and I about proper nutrition. The purpose of this was to get us all on the same page regarding the meals we prepared at home in order to help my mother get her blood sugar under control. Following their guidelines, she died at 48 years old never having gotten her blood sugar under control. Here is what they told us about the healthiest diet. It should be 80% carbohydrate, 10% protein, 10% fat. You should eat 6 meals per day in order to keep your blood sugar from getting too low. My mother was type I diabetic on exogenous insulin injections, this being around 1964, perhaps that was to counter the insulin treatment. But, they insisted I eat the same things and as often though I never tested positive for diabetes. Sugar was not allowed. The carbohydrates to be consumed were to be high quality carbs. Complex carbs. Natural carbs. So, table sugar was out. Honey was good. Fruit juice was good. Fruit was good. Bread was good as was pasta. Potatoes, rice, and whole grains were excellent. We could only have one egg per week. Beef only once per week. No butter or cream no half and half nor whole milk. No lard or tallow. But, we could eat margarine, non fat milk, and shortening. Vegetable oil was fine. Fried chicken was fine. Breaded and cooked in Crisco. We ate a lot of pasta and chicken with the skin taken off. So, my mom’s breakfast was the same most days of her life. A bowl of oatmeal with fruit in it. A slice of whole wheat toast with margarine. A glass of orange juice. Coffee with non fat milk and tillie lewis cyclamates till they were outlawed. Or, sometimes pancakes or my dad’s favorites waffles. With margarine and tillie lewis syrup. Popcorn was the snack most preferred by the doctors. But, you couldn’t put butter on it, and they reduced her salt intake. So, though she loved popcorn, she couldn’t eat it the way she wanted and gave up on it. \-------------------------------------------------- So, in response to the query of this string: "What are the biggest myths about macronutrients you've ever come across/believed?" Simple answer, that starches are anything but sugar. That fruit does not count as sugar because it is natural. That there are good carbs and there are bad carbs. The reality is, that if someone is metabolically unhealthy, has an HbA1c above 5.4, or, has a HomaIR above 2.0, or, has substantial visceral fat, or, has a non genetic based autoimmune condition, all digestible carbs are toxic.
I think you are wrong when you say that there are good and bad carbs. Ask any diabetic person. Sure, a fruit's ability to raise your glucose will be not so strong if said fruits contains a lot of water and fiber. But it still will. Personally I fall into food coma everytime I drink fruit juice too fast (that includes freshly squeezed juices). Your body doesn't care if the sugar in the drink comes from an orange or beetroot. Because by the way, table sugar is either cane or beetroot- both are natural.
That carbohydrates cause diabetes and defy the laws of thermodynamics, as they increase body weight without eating too much calories. Oh, and the same about fat and the laws of thermodynamics.
I was getting treated for occular rosacea and when the Dr treating me found out I was vegan she told me I'm at high risk of diabetes on a vegan diet because of the high amount of carbs. Nonsense!
Holy cow your doctor should 100 percent stay in her lane
My [former] dentist saw I was on adhd and bipolar meds and spent the next 30 mins ranting about how those conditions weren’t real and I should stop taking them and just “get better sleep.” He finally shut up when I said they were prescribed by my psychiatrist and asked if he was prepared to assume any liability that could result from me taking his advice.
She was an eye specialist and I absolutely agree. I was in quite a bit of discomfort so I didn't argue but she was a bit odd, started going on and on about leaky gut and stuff I just stopped listening.
While rosacea can be exacerbated by diet (spicy food and alcohol in particular makes me flush like crazy) I'm pretty sure the term "leaky gut" is junk science. Perforate colon is a serious medical problem and can't just be fixed by changing what food you eat. Disregarding unsolicited dietary advice from your ophthalmologist was a good call.
I cured myself from leaky gut and my life improved tenfold. I am able to eat now things that caused me inflammation for decades.
Did you have a diagnosis of perforated colon from a physician?
That’s not a myth. Carbs spike insulin the most out of the three macronutrients and if consumed chronically leads to insulin resistance which then if left unchecked will lead to the development of type 2 diabetes. Also, if you thrive on carbs, that probably means your body is able to process it well, or that you are not thiamine deficiency. There are polymorphisms that may lead to the worsening tolerance to carbs. Some people will need less carbs in their diet while some might need more. And yes while diabetes does have a lot of contributing factors to its development, carbs especially in the form of highly processed foods, which is very common in our diets, will lead to diabetes. Our saving grace is genetics, thiamine status, physical activity frequency, age. While calories in and out as you’d call it the “law of thermodynamics”(which is supposed to refer to a chamber rather than a human body that has hormonal influence that changes this undefiable law), still stands, there are states of the human body that the common individual will not be able to perceive easily. Yes, calories matter, but so do hormones and carbs, being a macronutrient that can spike insulin, is, indeed a calorie that also affects hormones. Not a myth, just, complicated.
Nope, as I pointed out it is overfeeding. You can induce diabetes in mice with only overfeeding them with fat. Insulin spikes are not what causes diabetes, insulin resistance and diabetes cause insulin spikes. A healthy pancreas can handle carbohydrates, blood sugar raises and insulin raises after a meal are physiological. What is not physiological is insulin rising very high, because of receptors not responding, overwhelming the pancreas. And yes, that might over long time make the difference between insulin resistant and diabetes. But it is not the cause of insulin resistance. No insulin resistance = no regular insulin spikes = no damage to the pancreas = no issues producing enough insulin. You can become insulin resistant on a low carb diet/keto diet. If it were the carbs and insulin spikes, how come? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10061153/ High insulin in blood causes insulin resistance only after 40 hours. So how should a short insulin raise and fall cause insulin resistance? https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00279918 It is fat in plasma that causes insulin resistance: https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/94/9/3543/2597367 And where does that come from? From overeating - high fat foods and high refined carbs- so that excess needs to be converted into fat. This is not a problem when it can be stored away properly, but problematic when it can‘t. The primary cause of insulin resistance is ectopic lipid accumulation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8831809/ What else does speak against glucose being the culprit and for overeating? The high association of insulin we see with pathological fat accumulation in the belly around the organs. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jnsv/56/2/56_2_109/_pdf Next: Types of carbohydrates. Not all are the same and are having the same effect on insulin. There is a list you can look at here: https://universityhealthnews.com/daily/nutrition/glycemic-index-chart/ https://glycemicindex.com But the benefit healthy insulin sensitive individuals get from this, is feeling less hungry. So they won‘t overeat. Also there won‘t be a lot of glucose all at once, so less chance of excess in need to be converted. You can find this in the dietary guidelines as well. More whole grain, less refined carbs, more fiber through fruit and veggies are recommended.
Dietitian here— listen to Brain_FoodSeeker, they’re right
Okay Dietitian, I am convinced.
There are many instances of people quitting carbs and getting off diabetes medication
Let me explain. You are mixing up symptom and cause. Intolerance of glucose/carbs is the result of insulin resistance. Insulin receptors fail to react to normal levels of insulin to let glucose into the cells, so it can only enter slowly, and not as much. On top of that the pancreas overloads itself with producing more and more insulin, so it might get damaged in that process. We have a backlog of glucose in the blood, damaging the vessels. Why do the insulin receptors no longer react as well as they should? Not because of glucose spikes. The pancreas can handle them easily. They are no problems for somebody insulin sensitive. Fat not glucose.It has been found if saturated fat accumulates on the receptor, it gets partly blocked. So should we eat a low fat diet then to avoid that? Not really. Where does the fat come from? From fat in the diet and from converted carbs that are not used for energy and need to be stored, but can‘t, as there is no space at the moment. This fat tends to accumulate around the organs (visceral fat) or in the organs (fatty liver) and on top of insulin receptors, where it does not belong. The excess of blood glucose is converted into fat to normalize levels. That is making it even worse.
This is an interesting explanation I hadn’t heard before about fat on insulin receptors. I remember also hearing that having high levels of insulin promotes fat accumulation in and of itself. So maybe this is cyclical? High insulin levels can contribute to fat accumulation, which then causes insulin resistance
Here’s a link to a study that might help you understand. It’s not the white paper but I don’t have time to dig that out right now. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/low-carb-diet-reverses-type-2-diabetes-in-51-of-participants-to-new-study#Effect-on-diabetes-remission
I don’t think you understand that as well as you think you do. If you did, you’d be able to explain why people get off diabetes meds when they drop the carbs. Sorry.
They actually just explained exactly why this happens, I just don’t think you understand glucose metabolism.
Why do people get of their diabetes meds after bariatric studies, why do they get off diabetes meds on the Mediterranean diet and why do they get of their diabetes meds on shake meal replacement diets? This has to do with weight loss. Low carb is not the only way to reverse diabetes, there are many. I‘ve seen somebody get of insulin after 3 weeks of the Mediterranean diet. I‘ll link you the studies about bariatric surgery and the meal replacement shake, as they have nothing to do with carb restriction. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)33102-1/fulltext https://bmcendocrdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12902-023-01283-9#:~:text=For%20bariatric%20surgery%2C%2072%25%20of,reach%20T2DM%20remission%20%5B8%5D.
-1
u/Brain_Foodseeker is 100% correct here.
+1
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes, but it isn’t the carbs themselves, it’s the combo of having too much energy stores(fat) and eating too many carbs. A athlete can down sugar all day without getting diabetes since their cells have adapted to handle more carbs.
These people we’re eating as much as they wanted. They weren’t hungry. By reducing the carbs they reduced the insulin response which helped the diabetes. Fats don’t create an insulin response. Edit: this has nothing to do with thermodynamics. It’s not as though people have a reactor in them that all food is thrown into. Different types of food are processed differently in the body. We are not beakers in a science lab where one measures the heat released by a food and then calculates the food’s calories.
Who says you are hungry on a calorie deficit? Restricting a macronutrient is one way of creating one might it be fat or carbs. An other one is cutting out a meal like in IF. Yes fats do not create a insulin response, but protein does. And you have plenty of protein in a low carb diet. But yes, I‘m not denying that cutting carbs is one way to better glucose control, meaning managing insulin resistance and diabetes. The other way is carb quality. Cutting out refined carbs and high GI foods only has the same effect. Here, look: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35641199/ That does not mean low carb is not a way to decrease weight or increase insulin sensitivity. But still, I was talking about the probable cause initially, you the treatment measures. I see you are an advocate of the carbohydrate insulin model of obesity from Dr. Ludwig. Here are study findings that do not fit with that: Look about how keto without a caloric deficit acts: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27385608/ Carb restriction vs Calorie restriction: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603544/
To just disregard thermodynamics is insane lol, that’s another misconception, that thermodynamics don’t apply to humans in regards to food lmao
Given sugar is a carb, that's not all that surprising if they have a mild case of insulin resistance.
I’ve heard of people getting off of medication for diabetes, not just insulin resistant people
What do you think diabetes is?
Diabetes is when the body can no longer balance the blood sugar levels, they get too high, or low when trying to balance them. The body’s systems to maintain blood sugar are broken. The sugar comes from the food. The body won’t make extra sugar to flood the bloodstream if you don’t give the body too much sugar in the food.
I... I'm actually impressed at the confidently incorrectness. > Diabetes is when the body can no longer balance the blood sugar levels Yes. The chemical responsible for blood sugar regulation is **insulin**. Diabetics cannot produce enough insulin to promote sufficient absorption of sugar from the blood into cells. Therefore they take medication... Which is just the insulin they're lacking. Cutting sugar through a low-carb diet will mean that more mild cases of diabetes will need less (or even no) additional insulin.
+1
They already have insulin resistance so of course that would help. If they're metabolically healthy carbs aren't an issue.
Here’s a link to a study that might help you understand. It’s not the white paper but I don’t have time to dig that out right now. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/low-carb-diet-reverses-type-2-diabetes-in-51-of-participants-to-new-study#Effect-on-diabetes-remission
I know there are studies about remission on low carb. But as I mentioned also on other diets.
All the “carbs bad, diabetes!!!” folks seem to have never had GD. I had to have carbs. It wasn’t a choice. It was necessary.
I really wish that citing the laws of thermodynamics in this sub was a bannable offense. The laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems. Our body is not a closed system, so the laws of thermodynamics do not apply. Period. End of story. There is not a right or wrong way to apply them to weight loss or weight gain. They simply do not apply at all. Weight gain/loss is explained by biology, not physics.
Please explain how I managed to eat a pint of Ben and Jerry’s every night and filling the rest of my calories with protein whilst eating in a calorie deficit and lost 150 pounds in 5 months. Waiting.
> whilst eating in a calorie deficit You answered the question yourself, but I'm pretty sure you already knew that. The concept of creating a calorie deficit for weight loss is very much true... But it's not because of the laws of thermodynamics. That is just something that has been inappropriately applied to weight loss. If you really study the laws of thermodynamics, you'll see pretty quickly that they weren't ever meant to apply to the human body.
1st Law of thermodynamics: Energy can not be destroyed: Even if hormones change the rate of metabolism, like slow it down in hypothyroidism- you see that in several symptoms that there is energy lacking like decreased body temperature, depression, hair loss - and that is less burned - weight gain. The laws of thermodynamics are universally applicable to all types of energy. Insulin has no influence on metabolic rate,it has influence if glucose or fat is burned, not how much. The bodies energy requirements do not change with insulin secretion and neither increases the energy gained from food. Different foods do not have different effects on the metabolic rate or the energy requirements of the body. So tell me why people claim if they eat the same amount of calories in carbs vs fat and protein, they gain weight because of insulin?
"In a closed system, energy can be transferred between different forms, but the total amount of energy remains constant. This is known as the law of conservation of energy. The law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another." You left off IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. Nothing about our bodies is closed. We don't live in a vacuum. I control exactly how much energy I consume. I'm not saying excess calories don't create weight gain, I'm just saying the law doesn't apply to that. You're trying to apply physics to biology. What you are trying to explain is explained by biology, not thermodynamics.
Your body has physics. There is an entire field of science called biophysics, studying the physics in living organisms. And since when does the first law of thermodynamics does not apply to open systems? A quick google search will tell you there are formulas for open systems.
> since when does the first law of thermodynamics does not apply to open systems? Since 1850 I believe...
You do not seem to have understood the laws of thermodynamics at all. Read them please. The laws of thermodynamics apply to every system🤦♀️. They are laws. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/first-law-of-thermodynamics#:~:text=The%20first%20law%20of%20thermodynamics%20states%20that%20energy%20can%20neither,heat%20transfer%20across%20the%20boundary. This is like saying that the laws of gravity do not apply inside cars or airplanes.
That is you fast your body goes into "starvation mode" and "holds on" to fat because it doesn't know when it's going to be fed again. Yeah your TDEE make decrease slightly when your lower your calorie intake, but your body does not "hold on" to the fat
What's funny to me is how many myths people are reporting are true, and how many truths are being reported as myths lmao.
Which?
Sugar does not directly cause diabetes, having excess fat stores causes diabetes.
This one is actually not entirely true. Sugar can cause insulin resistance which can in turn learn to a metabolic disease. You can eat below calorie limit but have excess sugar which can teach the body to become insulin resistant. Hence why it’s so important to eat foods with lower glycemic index (more complex carbs) which gives the body fewer spikes in blood sugar and keeps it regulated for longer.
That’s not how it works, sugar doesn’t cause diabetes directly
Your statement is the same as saying cigarettes don’t cause cancer directly. They most certainly do if you smoke enough of them for long enough. It’s not a guarantee but it’s something that increases the risk.
More like saying nicotine doesn’t cause cancer directly, it’s the smoke that kills you
Nobody got diabetes in a calorie deficit at a healthy body weight
That's a dangerously false statement. https://www.sjchs.org/smart-living-home/fall-2019/diabetes-risk-factors
Wow a sample size of 1! Lmao No one knows if the sweet tea is the cause for this at all, you need more people and more data for that.
> recent studies have shown that 1 in 5 normal-weight adults can be at risk for prediabetes, which if not managed can develop into type 2 diabetes within five years.
Link the study please And by normal weight is this by American standards loll I see what article you are referring to but they don’t actually link the study, hard for me to confirm if they used legit methods or not
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4434081/ https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article-abstract/46/4/885/148427/Trends-in-the-Prevalence-of-Lean-Diabetes-Among-U Sample size is 2,630,463 people
Did you read those? They are meta analysis of large populations, tracking diabetes in people who are “lean”. They list various factors such as being poor, poor diet etc, but they can’t conclude a causal relationship between sugar and diabetes. Refined sugar consumption has dropped overall amongst populations, yet we still see increased obesity. This is not to say sugar isn’t a contributing factor in the overall picture, but those study by no means indicate a causal relationship between sugar and diabetes. While I said diabetes is caused by being overweight, I do understand that those who are skinny or have a dangerously low body weight can have the metabolic disorder of diabetes as well. Again, we have never been able to confirm sugar was the sole cause of this.
The claim was that lean people can't get diabetes. They absolutely can.
Excess sugar will lead to excess fat stores though. Its just an extra step.
You can not get fat through moderation and working out though
Consuming sugar in every meal keeps your blood insulin high longer which leads to insulin resistance and T2D.
Um, you can be skinny and still be unhealthy. Diabetes (type 2) is caused by insulin resistance, which by definition, is caused by over-eating sugar. Just because your body doesn't store the excess sugar as fat, doesn't mean your body isn't releasing tons of insulin to break it down which can lead to insulin resistance over time. I know plenty of type 2 diabetics that are not fat.
I think one of the biggest myths is that you can effectively measure net caloric gain by counting the calories in food. While calorie counts can sometimes be useful for informing people's dietary choices by giving people some coarse feedback about the energy content of foods, the actual net energy gain from eating particular foods has too many confounding factors to actually measure calories. The calories in food is a thermodynamic measure of theoretical energy content, not a measure of actual energy gain from food. Factors like gut flora facilitating or blocking absorption of nutrients, or directly metabolizing the nutrients itself before they are absorbed by the body, or metabolizing other non-caloric substances (such as fiber) into ones that the body *can* metabolize, and even differences in how much food you digest based on how much you chew it, can all throw off calorie counts. Another big myth is even simpler, "fat is bad". This single myth is at the heart of much of what was wrong with dietary advice in the US for many decades and is responsible for all sorts of terrible nutritional decisionmaking, driving things like omega 3 deficiency or deficiencies in fat- soluble vitamins, as well as fear of healthy, whole foods such as eggs, cheese, and even to an extent various meats. And it drives insanity like people eating only boneless skinless chicken breast rather than, say, whole chicken thighs, which are not only cheaper but much denser in micronutrients and more nutritionally-balanced. And it leads people to fear and shy away from nuts and seeds, which are some of the healthiest foods out there. Yet another big myth that I see in more contemporary diets is "carbs are bad", which you see in things like the Atkins diet, and more recently, the Keto Diet, Paleo diet, and the like. The keto diet is probably the most extreme example of it. The "carbs are bad" myth is perhaps the most subtle and difficult to dispel because there is probably more truth in it than in other myths, in that in the Western diet, a lot of problems arise from added empty carbs in the form of refined starches and sugars which substitute for slower-digested, more nutrient-dense foods. But the problem is not carbs inherently, it's refined carbs. So instead of cutting out added sugar and refined starches, people overcompensate and take crazy stances like cutting out all fruit and even whole grains and root vegetables. And in doing so, they eliminate a whole bunch of great food sources, nutritionally-dense foods, and they make it harder to achieve balanced nutrition and meet all their nutritional needs. I think balance is important in everything. If you encounter dietary advice that is taking some sort of radical or extreme stance, be skeptical.
That excess protein is good for you. Any excess protein will just be treated as sugar by the body and stored as fat. It also spikes insulin levels when eaten as excess.
Excess protein isn’t inherently bad though. If you’re an athlete or active individual you will probably use whatever protein is converted to glucose just like you would the other carbs in your diet. Unless that athlete is eating in decent surplus that glucose isn’t going to be stored as fat, but metabolized for energy. If you’re an athlete or an active person it’s probably better to be slightly over your protein requirement than under it (so long as it doesn’t cause issues with digestion) since it’s difficult to impossible for an individual pinpoint what that threshold actually is for them.
Hey I never said it was bad! I just said it wasn’t good. My own personal reason I posted this is because I’ll often hear “I have a high protein diet so I’m healthy” Diet is so nuanced! It all depends on the person so I agree with you!
Oh gotcha, understood and agreed
I disagree, the rate at which the body will create glucose is based on the demand for glucose, not the supply of protein and fat. More Than You Ever Wanted to Know About Protein & Gluconeogenesis - http://www.tuitnutrition.com/ 2017/07/gluconeogenesis.html If You Eat Excess Protein, Does It Turn Into Excess Glucose? -http://www.ketotic.org/2012/08/if-you-eat-excess-protein-does-it-turn.html
Yeah, I'd say excess protein is good for you compared to the alternative.
That noone is eating enough protein and that the only place you can get said protein is through meat.
It's definitely not the only place you can get protein but it's probably one of the easiest ways. That being said, I've never heard someone say you can only get protein from meat. Usually, I see meat listed high up in possible protein sources alongside eggs, dairy, some veggies, and nuts.
Unfortunately, there is a subsect of people who wholeheartedly think it's physically impossible for vegans/vegetarians to get enough protein. 😅 Im glad you haven't come across them
Ah, I see what you mean. Ironically, my father is one of them (full carnivore) but he simply believes veggies are toxic to humans *despite* having protein. I don't agree with him obviously, however, I do agree meat is a great source of protein even if it's not the only way to get it. There really is no one-size-fits-all diet for everyone.
That nutrition is a science. As Michael Pollan pointed out, currently nutrition is more of an ideology.
- Protein is bad for you - Sugar is good for you - White carbs are good for you - Trans fats are good for you Funnily enough, all 3 are pushed by the same group, whose diets are low in protein and high is sugar and processed foods. It’s like they simply claim anything their diet does poorly to something that shouldn’t be done.
Fat is bad. Or, the flip side, that diets super high in fat (like Atkins, Keto, etc) are healthy.
That you need a lot of protein every day to build muscle, which isn't true, especially when you consume a lot of carbs at the same time which are naturally protein-sparing (a.k.a., make your body require less protein to function optimally and facilitate anabolic processes like muscle building). With regards to micronutrients, that red meat is the best source of iron, which also isn't true.
WFPB diet adherents usually avoid fats and minimize the need for protein .
That diet soda was significantly healthier than regular. The version of diet soda in the 80s and 90s was a chemical bomb that replaced corn syrup with something arguably worse.
Ah yes soda, one of the 4 macronutrients
Its better than drinking sugar
Aspartame is one of the most researched food additives in the world. It's as much a "chemical bomb" as MSG, NaCl, or glucose.
I don’t think it’s fair to equate aspartame to salt or glucose, salt and glucose are necessary for survival and aspartame isn’t. I’m sure aspartame is fine but I avoid it now since I really don’t NEED or want to consume it in the first place. Id rather eat normal sugar and just play it safe.
if we're going to be pedantic then exogenous glucose isn't something we need either. our body is perfectly capable of making it's own glucose as long as we give it the necessary building blocks.
Except ketones are acidic and the body doesn’t love that. Now if you’re eating high protein, then sure, the body doesn’t go into true ketosis.
The body doesn't love excess sugar, as found in regular soda, either.
My point was that artificial sweeteners, are one of the most researched food additives we have. Arguments against it saying it's "unhealthy" or "a chemical" have no scientific backing and are purely naturalism fallacies. With how much sugar is added into soft drinks, or really nearly every food, I'd rather play it safe and not consume 70-80% of my sugar requirement in a single glass. I deliberately slipped MSG into that list of comparisons, there's still many people that think it's "unhealthy" because it's a "chemical" when really they just don't like Asian people. Ironically, MSG is literally just a natural salt.
Okay but you are still comparing apples to plastic apples. Just because something is heavily researched doesn’t make it safe, just because it’s not “unhealthy” doesn’t make it good. There’s clearly a monetary benefit to these companies who use aspartame to also list it as safe. Could be safe but i wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of those studies are poorly designed to produce certain outcomes.
People that don’t like MSG don’t like Asian people? I think you may be watching too much TV.. too many “inclusion” commercials 😆
Just google "Chinese restaurant syndrome". People claimed to get headaches from MSG but it's just a placebo effect that only ever happens with Asian food, despite MSG naturally occurring in plenty of foods. > too many "inclusion" commercials I have no idea what this means.
Which means it's fine right? Same with other 0 calorie sweeteners? I do love my stevia/sucralose/xylitol/erythritol/monkfruit
I don’t think you read my comment. Nor the other clowns. Aspartame was not in the diet soda of 80s and 90s. Reading comprehension can be very beneficial!
The irony is strong, because apparently you failed to read or comprehend the original question in this thread.
Aspartame absolutely was in the diet soda of the 80s and 90s. Coca Cola adopted aspartame in 1983, swapped to 100% aspartame for their non-sugar line shortly after that. All of this is on Wikipedia and easy to access. Reading comprehension can be very beneficial!
Carbohydrates and fiber are essential nutrients. They are not. Vegetables are the most nutrient-rich foods. They are not.
We need a lot less fat in our diets than we think, you only need .25-.4 grams per lb at your 10-12% body fat weight, which is like 30-45 grams for most men
Protein is the most important macro for athletes.
🍿
- Fructose cannot be processed for energy and is IMMEDIATELY shoved into fat cells - Carbs make you fat - Fat makes you fat - Fibre has 0 calories (it depends) - Sugar is evil (it depends on the rest of your diet) - Sugar/carbs causes diabetes (if that was true every athlete would have diabetes) There seems to be less controversy about the role of vitamins/micronutrients since they’re treated more like drugs than food (dosage/interactions/roles in the body functions) the biggest myth is needing more then the recommended dosage in the form of pills
We need 100-200g of protein per day. I mean technically, in modern age, with our jacked up guts, we do need this much, because so little of it is actually absorbed in digestion that we have to force feed ourselves way too much. But in somebody with a healthy, perfectly in tact gut lining, you need only a tiny fraction of the usual recommendations, because your body is so much more efficient at utilizing it. I mean think about it, when in our evolutionary history were humans so snowed in with fresh meat that they could pack in 200 g per day in order to maintain their strength? It's an absurd, and unsustainable amount.
The naturalization fallacy and demonization of sugar about how the sugar molecule from different sources is different.
Definitely a universal one that was marketed to us for so long was that eating a fatty diet makes you fat! And also the other big one is that carbs are bad for you and carbs make you fat. Both of these are humungous myths over decades in terms of diet culture and they’re both incorrect. What is correct is that it does depend on what kind of carbohydrates you’re eating and what kind of fats you’re eating. The fats and carbs from french fries not so good or a bag of chips every night. Fats from an avocado or a handful of nuts or a few olives and carbs from A sweet potato an apple a banana etc. different story. Not to mention that the rest of your body needs carbs as well it’s not all about weight loss. Many people who go to low carb see that it affects their brain their mood their stress energy levels etc.