No carbs and no sugar

[Daisy-oliviaWentcher]

My friend has lost 6 kg in two weeks front illiminating carbohydrates & sugars. Doesn't seem entirely healthy. What are the pros and cons of such a diet?

[SammySammy]

The pro is that it works the con is that it's not sustainable long-term.

[Toddbt12y1]

I would rather eat healthy carbs at a reduced rate than no carbs. Burnt out being one disadvantage to getting no carbs. If you're very active, the carbs are needed. Really, healthy carbs in the right amount, are not bad at all. Ketosis is the goal. But you do not have to rob yourself entirely.

 

The Risks of High-Protein, Low-Carb Diets

Some experts have raised concern about high-protein, low-carb diets.

 

High cholesterol.Some protein sources -- like fatty cuts of meat, whole dairy products, and other high-fat foods -- can raise cholesterol, increasing your chance of heart disease. However, studies showed that people on the Atkins diet for up to 2 years actually had decreased “bad” cholesterol levels.

Kidney problems. If you have any kidney problems, eating too much protein puts added strain on your kidneys. This could worsen kidney function.

Osteoporosis and kidney stones. When you're on a high-protein diet, you may urinate more calcium than normal. There are conflicting reports, but some experts think this could make osteoporosis and kidney stones more likely.

Unhealthy metabolic state (ketosis). During ketosis, the body forms substances known as ketones, which can dull appetite and cause nausea and bad breath. Ketosis can be prevented by eating at least 100 grams of carbohydrates a day.

 

- webmd.

 

Of course, these diets do work as well. Atkins diet, for example. Still, I have had success with dieting with some reduction in carbs, rather than cutting them out. Imo

[CarrieT]

The pro is that it works the con is that it's not sustainable long-term.

 

^ ^ This. ^ ^

 

I've done it a few times myself; given up carbs and sugars and got trim and slim and as soon as I start introducing carbs or sugars back into my diet, I start getting chunky again.

 

I'm going it again now, actually. Each time I am able to go a little bit longer in sustaining the trimmer me, but I'm not sure I can live an entire life with no carbs or no sugars.

[pink_sugar]

I think limiting carbs and sugars to a reasonable amount is a better idea than elimination entirely. Moderation is always key. For me, lots of starches, carbs and wheat/gluten make me bloated often, so I try and limit them a bit more.

[FitChick]

People go to extremes when they should just use common sense and portion control. Eat one slice of bread, not a whole loafl; one or two cookies, not the whole box. Save the cake and ice cream for birthdays. It's not meant to be eaten everyday.

[EasyHeart]

Carbs in moderation is healthy and maintainable over the long run. If you need to cut calories, you might as well cut the ones with the least nutritional value, and that's starches.

 

There's no need to eat added sugar ever. You can get plenty of sweetness from fruit without eating anything with added sugar in it. Sugar does nothing good for your body and we're learning that it does all sorts of bad things to your body.

[lisahpandy]

For me, I am on a strict low carb now to reduce and low/no sugar. It's working to help me loose weight for sure. My problem about keep it off is I'm a carb-addict so thats why adding carbs back in before were bad carb (sugar flour) and those get me addicted WHEAT BELLY is a great book to look at for that. So I can't be doing lots of pasta or sweats or bread ever unless I learn to control my intake of them and that could be a long time from now.

Some people eat low carb like Atkins induction phase Mon-Fri and then add carbs on the weekend when it's harder. But you will be at risk of binges if you're a carb addict.

[Robert Z]

My friend has lost 6 kg in two weeks front illiminating carbohydrates & sugars. Doesn't seem entirely healthy. What are the pros and cons of such a diet?

 

What diet is she following? If she isn't following a proper diet, like Atkins, she could do herself harm. And that has to be done properly. There can be excess stress on the kidneys and the possibility of liver damage. THE most important thing is to drink a lot of water. Dehydration can easily occur and this is very dangerous for all of your organs.

 

It is common to lose a lot of weight in the first few weeks. Much of this often water weight. But the fat loss can be dramatic as well. Is she in ketosis? How many grams of carbs a day? How much water does she drink? What vegetables is she eating? There are many diet plans out there and many of them are not safe.

 

You can do this and lose weight fast and then go into the maintenance program for the long term. But no one should stay on an extreme low-carb diet indefinitely.

 

Extreme means 25 grams of carbs a day. That is the target for ketosis - they key to the Atkins diet - but you should NEVER eat less than that. In order to maintain a less rigorous diet and avoid the complexity of ketosis, stay above 100 grams of carbs a day. And they need to be all good carbs.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Robert Z

[melodicintention]

Depends on what types of carbs she is eliminating.

 

I don't eat carbs like breads. But I do eat a lot of complex carbs like beans. I don't drink sodas or intake extra sugar, except once a month I do allow myself a treat. I eat a lot of soups and salads, I don't eat processed foods and I eat enough to feel almost full 5-6 times a day (mini-meals). I weight 120lbs @ 5'5", I don't excercise as much as I should, yet I have no issue maintaining my weight on this diet. So I say go for it, cut out the "bad" carbs like breads and pastas and replace them with complex carbs. And it's NEVER unhealthy to cut out processed sugars.

[contact1]

Cutting out carbs makes you lose water weight like Robert said. With little to no carbs, your body is unable to hold onto water as normal, so your "weight" goes down, but that doesn't mean you will lose fat. What happens when you eat carbs again, all those carbs now attach and keep all that water weight you lost, so you back to square one, but went through a crap diet feeling like you were starving for a temporary solution.

[RonaldS]

No carbs? Jesus H. Christ.

 

When are people going to stop effing around with their own physiology, something most people know ZERO about, and just live right? Seriously. It's getting out of control.

 

Balanced diet, exercise, and rest. Done. That's all you need to do. That's it. Want to lose weight? Take in fewer calories than you use. That's it. Easy. Why do people screw with their own bodies so haphazardly?

 

Sometimes this stuff makes me want to smash my head against a brick wall.

[RonaldS]

Depends on what types of carbs she is eliminating.

 

I don't eat carbs like breads. But I do eat a lot of complex carbs like beans. I don't drink sodas or intake extra sugar, except once a month I do allow myself a treat. I eat a lot of soups and salads, I don't eat processed foods and I eat enough to feel almost full 5-6 times a day (mini-meals). I weight 120lbs @ 5'5", I don't excercise as much as I should, yet I have no issue maintaining my weight on this diet. So I say go for it, cut out the "bad" carbs like breads and pastas and replace them with complex carbs. And it's NEVER unhealthy to cut out processed sugars.

Pretty much all carbs, whether you get them from a magical bean or a friggin Oreo cookie, ultimately get converted by your body into glucose. Moot point.

 

There really are no 'good' or 'bad' carbs.

[Robert Z]

No carbs? Jesus H. Christ.

 

When are people going to stop effing around with their own physiology, something most people know ZERO about, and just live right? Seriously. It's getting out of control.

 

Balanced diet, exercise, and rest. Done. That's all you need to do. That's it. Want to lose weight? Take in fewer calories than you use. That's it. Easy. Why do people screw with their own bodies so haphazardly?

 

Sometimes this stuff makes me want to smash my head against a brick wall.

 

 

The Atkins diet has been studied intensively since the 1970s. And there is growing evidence that it delays, slows, and even prevents the growth of cancer. This isn't some fad diet.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/757713

[EverLastluv]

every time I would loose 15-20 1b by elimating carbs and sugar I would gain back twice the amount once I start eating it again.

 

Life sucks, when you cant eat GOOD food I worked out my entire life trying to loose weight, as I get older my weight is heavier when I slack up on my diet.

Edited July 17, 2014 by EverLastluv

[Robert Z]

every time I would loose 15-20 1b by elimating carbs and sugar I would gain back twice the amount once I start eating it again.

 

Life sucks, when you cant eat GOOD food I worked out my entire life trying to loose weight, as I get older my weight is heavier when I slack up on my diet.

 

 

So if you eat crap you get fat. No surprise there. We didn't evolve the eat pizza and drink Coke.

 

 

People who restrict their diet and then give up generally overcompensate and blow up like a balloon.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Robert Z

[Robert Z]

Pretty much all carbs, whether you get them from a magical bean or a friggin Oreo cookie, ultimately get converted by your body into glucose. Moot point.

 

There really are no 'good' or 'bad' carbs.

 

 

True, glucose is glucose. However, some food have a low glycemic index compared to others. So that is one factor that can directly affect your health. More and more, bad foods are attributed to the onset of diseases like adult-onset diabetes. The other is to make your foods nutrient dense. Oreo cookies have no nutritional value.

 

Given that the intake of calories is finite, it is important to make the calories count. I consider bad carbs to be those that come with no additional nutritional value.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Robert Z

[Robert Z]

Noteworthy also, if you requires that sources of carbs also be high in nutrients, then you automatically tend towards a low-carb diet - not extremely low but low compared to the norm. For example, pasta is virtually nothing but carbs. So don't eat pasta if you want your calories to count.

 

 

On a personal level, I keep coming back to the idea that we have likely been ketogenic for most of human history. The true "fad diet" may in fact be what we use as the standard today - high carb, low fat. I wonder a great deal about the role of high carb diets in the dramatic increases that we see in the incidence of cancers. Cancer loves carbs and hates ketones!

Edited July 17, 2014 by Robert Z

[RonaldS]

Noteworthy also, if you requires that sources of carbs also be high in nutrients, then you automatically tend towards a low-carb diet - not extremely low but low compared to the norm. For example, pasta is virtually nothing but carbs. So don't eat pasta if you want your calories to count.

 

 

On a personal level, I keep coming back to the idea that we have likely been ketogenic for most of human history. The true "fad diet" may in fact be what we use as the standard today - high carb, low fat. I wonder a great deal about the role of high carb diets in the dramatic increases that we see in the incidence of cancers. Cancer loves carbs and hates ketones!

 

We're going to disagree a little here. There IS nutritional value in 'carbs', even those found in pasta or Oreos or a spoon full of table sugar.

 

At the end of the day, the root structure that all carbs are constructed of is the simple monosaccharide glucose. Glucose is THE energy source of the body, put in simple terms. What your body does when you obtain carbohydrates is ultimately break them down and convert them to glucose, which it then stores as glycogens in muscle tissue.

 

Let's say you eat a candy bar with Xg of sugar, which would be sucrose. Well, sucrose is a glucose/fructose bonded molecule. Your body will metabolically cleave the glucose off, and then the fructose will be shipped to the liver to be converted to...you guessed it...glucose. That's the nutshell version of what happens to carbohydrates.

 

I will agree that it is not nutritionally beneficial to derive glucose from junk foods that don't offer much else in the way of nutrients. Why eat some Oreos when you can eat an equivalent caloric-value such as yogurt with fruit and get vitamins, calcium, etc? That's a fine position to take, but that's not what I'm talking about. Also, I agree that most processed/junk foods are filled with a bunch of crap you don't need, and those can (not will) have a deleterious impact on your health.

 

My point is that the body knows exactly what to do with what it gets, and it will convert and metabolize the things that it gets ahold of. The body doesn't care if it gets glucose from a cookie, a banana or yogurt. It's going to break it all down into what it needs.

 

The other point I will make is that it's not the sugar/carb's fault that people are overweight and unhealthy. It's the persons fault. Half-ass biochem experiments to try to reverse the damage somebody does to themselves as a result of not knowing or caring about their own bodies is sort of on them.

 

Excersize + balanced diet + rest = health. It's a formula as old as time.

 

I will also agree that if a person is trying to lose weight, they need to cut back on the amount of calories they consume that are carbs....and fat....and protein. The bottom line is, cut back portions, make them as healthy as you can, and do work and exercise so that your body is burning rather than storing what you consume. Simple, simple, simple.

[Thruster]

let's get this going in the right direction

 

cutting down on carbs (good thing)

 

cutting out on processed sugar (good thing)

[HermioneG]

Noteworthy also, if you requires that sources of carbs also be high in nutrients, then you automatically tend towards a low-carb diet - not extremely low but low compared to the norm. For example, pasta is virtually nothing but carbs. So don't eat pasta if you want your calories to count.

 

 

On a personal level, I keep coming back to the idea that we have likely been ketogenic for most of human history. The true "fad diet" may in fact be what we use as the standard today - high carb, low fat. I wonder a great deal about the role of high carb diets in the dramatic increases that we see in the incidence of cancers. Cancer loves carbs and hates ketones!

 

Do you eat paleo? This sounds like paleo reasoning to me.

 

I am familiar with the medscape article you linked. It's worth examining the premise of it- but both carbs and proteins biologically provoke an insulin response. That's what a lot of paleo/vlc diet adherents miss when they talk about "carbs" fueling cancer and the like. Some of the lowest cancer rates in the world are found in populations with heavily carb based diets. There are lots of scientists who have been working to cut through the mythology and explain what really is at play here with the whole low carb idea. A great place for starting off reading is James Krieger's website. The headlines about carbs and ( and by carbs, I am speaking of whole grains, fruit and veggies, including legumes) cancer are a case of correlation and not causation.

 

Glycemic index, glycemic load, and chronic disease risk?a meta-analysis of observational studies

 

 

Truly, and scientifically based ( and not all scientific studies are created equal, which is why it pays to dig past the headlines and really look at the material), the best thing you can do for your health is not to focus on a diet that leaves you chronically deprived or cuts out major food groups. A wide and varied diet, from many sources, and not too much of it ( but again, not too little, either) and moving your body is what promotes health and prolongs life.

 

Fats and Cholesterol: Out with the Bad, In with the Good | The Nutrition Source | Harvard School of Public Health

[HermioneG]

We're going to disagree a little here. There IS nutritional value in 'carbs', even those found in pasta or Oreos or a spoon full of table sugar.

 

At the end of the day, the root structure that all carbs are constructed of is the simple monosaccharide glucose. Glucose is THE energy source of the body, put in simple terms. What your body does when you obtain carbohydrates is ultimately break them down and convert them to glucose, which it then stores as glycogens in muscle tissue.

 

Let's say you eat a candy bar with Xg of sugar, which would be sucrose. Well, sucrose is a glucose/fructose bonded molecule. Your body will metabolically cleave the glucose off, and then the fructose will be shipped to the liver to be converted to...you guessed it...glucose. That's the nutshell version of what happens to carbohydrates.

 

I will agree that it is not nutritionally beneficial to derive glucose from junk foods that don't offer much else in the way of nutrients. Why eat some Oreos when you can eat an equivalent caloric-value such as yogurt with fruit and get vitamins, calcium, etc? That's a fine position to take, but that's not what I'm talking about. Also, I agree that most processed/junk foods are filled with a bunch of crap you don't need, and those can (not will) have a deleterious impact on your health.

 

My point is that the body knows exactly what to do with what it gets, and it will convert and metabolize the things that it gets ahold of. The body doesn't care if it gets glucose from a cookie, a banana or yogurt. It's going to break it all down into what it needs.

 

The other point I will make is that it's not the sugar/carb's fault that people are overweight and unhealthy. It's the persons fault. Half-ass biochem experiments to try to reverse the damage somebody does to themselves as a result of not knowing or caring about their own bodies is sort of on them.

 

Excersize + balanced diet + rest = health. It's a formula as old as time.

 

I will also agree that if a person is trying to lose weight, they need to cut back on the amount of calories they consume that are carbs....and fat....and protein. The bottom line is, cut back portions, make them as healthy as you can, and do work and exercise so that your body is burning rather than storing what you consume. Simple, simple, simple.

 

Precisely. Very well stated.

[RonaldS]

let's get this going in the right direction

 

cutting down on carbs (good thing)

 

cutting out on processed sugar (good thing)

 

Explain.

 

What's the difference between processed sugar and not processed ('natural'?) sugar?

[HermioneG]

Explain.

 

What's the difference between processed sugar and not processed ('natural'?) sugar?

 

Ooh ! Ooh! I know!!

 

But you probably aren't asking me, since I know the correct answer. LOL!!

[HammieYammie]

My friend has lost 6 kg in two weeks front illiminating carbohydrates & sugars. Doesn't seem entirely healthy. What are the pros and cons of such a diet?

 

That is rubbish method of losing weight.

 

Carbs, Protein, Fat = Calories

 

Reduction in Carbs, will result in a reduction of calories. Now you will have to up your fats and protein as result of a reduction in carbs.

 

Calories = energy. Your body has a caloric maintenance level, it is the amount of calories you need in-order to maintain your weight. If you reduce your caloric maintenance level, you will be in a deficit therefore you will lose mass.

Exercising will put use up calories, putting you deeper into a deficit.

 

Now you're losing mass. If you would like to reduce the amount of good mass [muscle] lost then up your calories and start doing resistance work.

 

 

 

Carbs are good, just limit the amount of bad carbs you consume. Would you rather eat yam or brown rice or sugary doughnut.