Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnP
I'm not going to flame you. I am going to point out that you need to double check your fact sources. It is true that our bodies prefer glucose over fatty acids and intense exercise will be more difficult in a glycogen depleted state.
Everything else in the context of any diet that is sufficient in protein is pure fabrication in particular "...in other words without glucose, your ability to utilize fats will become severely limited." Whomever told you this does not understand human physiology. You might want to google gluconeogenesis.
As for why someone would want to do it - as pointed out by others fat and protein are more satiating than carbohydrates and for most people the easiest way to limit caloric intake is restricting carbs.
By the way - I"m not a fan of ketogenic dieting but for many people it is very helpful for compliance.
I am a fan of getting ones facts straight. Don't feel bad it is very easy to get misled ...
I would also argue that there's nothing inherently unnatural about a low-carb diet. Most low-carb diets aren't no-carb diets, they're low-digestible carb, high-undigestible-carb (that is fiber) diets.
However there are several cultures who've survived and thrived on nearly no-carb diets (many lived in arctic and desert environments where edible plants are scarce most of the year). The Inuit, Mongols, and other aboriginal peoples eat a diet that would be considered low-carb in today's world.
Even with the large percentage of calories coming from animal fat and protein, these folks don't get modern diseases like heart disease, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, high blood pressure, obesity.... until they adopt a western high-carb diet.
A study was done of Aboriginal peoples (of Samoan descent) in Australian/New Zealand prisons. Those who were allowed to maintain their ancestral diet (low-carb, undomesticated animal protein/fat) did not develop the modern lifestyle diseases associated that those of westerners. Those forced to eat the western diet with the other prisoners not only developed those diseases, their health issues improved or resolved when they were allowed to return to the ancestral diet.
Likewise, there's quite a bit of evidence that the pre-agrarian human diet (that is for about 95% or more of human history) would be considered low-carb by today's standards, because most foods were quite low in digestible carbs. Even fruits weren't nearly as sweet as their modern counterparts.
We've bred sugar and starch into our foods and fiber out of them. So there's absolutely nothing natural about today's high-carb diet. 99% of the food we eat (whether we're eating many fruits and vegetables or not, and whether or not we're vegetarian or vegan) aren't remotely like those that are found in the wild
The fiber intake estimates for pre-agrarian humans has been estimated to fall between 75g and 200g (200g being the fiber intake of the animal we share the most DNA with, chimpanzees) and in the modern day 35g is considered a "high-fiber diet."
More and more research is finding that reducing digestible carbs (sugars and starches) and increasing undigestible carbs (fiber - in the form of low-calorie, high-fiber foods) helps the body function better in many ways, and yet as a nation, we don't even average 5 servings of freggies (fruits and veggies) per day, while our ancestors (even post-agriculture) ate at least two to three times that.
The main reason a no-carb diet doesn't work well in the modern western world, is that we've become too picky. We don't eat every part of the animal, and every part of the plant. We eat what we consider the choicest parts, and throw everything else away (or turn it into animal food... our animals are often eating better than we are).
Those of us who eat potatoes, apples, carrots, beets, turnips, kohlrabi... and other wonderful foods often don't eat the leaves or the skins (often the most nutritious and highest fiber parts).
The reason aboriginal and arctic people may be able to survive well on an arctic diet is because they eat every bit of the critter, sea mammal fat is higher in vitamin C and Vitamin D than dairy, and the plants they DO eat such as seaweeds, blueberries, and other berries and ground herbs are incredibly rich in antioxidants (and they also burn a lot of calories hunting, gathering, and staying warm).
I think most of us would probalby do best on a moderately low-carb diet. We don't need more than 200g of digestible-carbs (the level that used to be recommended for diabetics, so this is still a reduced-carb diet), we probably don't need more than 100g of digestible-carbs (considered low-carb by most dietitians), and we may not even need 6o or 80.
And while those who exercise intensely probably will do better on the higher range of the spectrum, no one needs to be getting 95% of their calories from carbs (which many Americans, especially in southern states are eating).
The question becomes "how low is low?" and "how low is too low?" I think people can only experiment to find the right level for themselves. At least until the "experts" know more about predicting an individual's nutritional nees.
I can only judge low-carb (what I consider low-carb, which is all the fiber-carbs I can eat and digestible carbs under about 100g) by my experience. I feel best on a diet that is high in undigestible carbs (low-carb fruits and veggies) and low in digestible carbs (especially the quickest digesting ones - the high GI/GL ones).
Many would say I'm not really on a low-carb diet, but most folks underestimate the number of carbs allowed on the vast majority of low-carb diets. They associate low-carb with Atkins induction low (20g or fewer) when very few low-carb diets (even the lowest) don't advocate or require carb-restriction that severe. So we're often judging an entire class of diets by their most extreme member.