Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
AGILEDOBE Posts: 428
11/16/13 11:18 P

The digestion of protein results in nitrogen as a byproduct which can become toxic/excessive if you over do it. Nitrogen is converted to urea and creatinine in the liver which then goes on to the kidneys for excretion. Kidneys may have a difficult time handling elevated levels of creatinine.

LOLA_LALA Posts: 659
11/16/13 4:56 P

People with kidney disease need to listen to the advice of a registered dietitian and their nephrologist. Nephrology practices usually have an R.D. on staff, and I know - both from personal experience and that of a relative - that some patients with kidney disease MUST limit protein consumption.

When in doubt, ask your doctor and a qualified R.D.

ALGEBRAGIRL Posts: 1,925
11/16/13 4:32 P

I haven't heard or read anything about protein toxicity. However, just recently, I was reading about phosphorus and how an excess of that is not good for kidney function. Perhaps this eventually gets linked and translated to toxicity, as regards long-term consumption of too much phosphorus. I don't know. However, if you do have kidney disease, it's an issue.

'Among healthy people, an approximate 33% increase in dietary phosphorus after institution of a high-protein diet does not cause large changes in measured concentrations of phosphorus regulatory hormones.'

It is one study. Not much to go on! One thing that I found interesting is how many food additives contribute to phosphorus.

Good reason for whole foods!

Edited by: ALGEBRAGIRL at: 11/16/2013 (16:33)
RUSSELL_40 Posts: 16,826
11/15/13 3:09 P

I love how they say 10-35 %, but then also say 46 grams for women, and 56 grams for men. I eat about 1850 calories a day, which isn't unusual for a guy, and 56 grams would be about 12 % protein.

I eat 140 grams a day ( about 30 % ), and have no problems. I may go to the bathroom more on days when i get close to 160 grams, but that isn't a problem, since I actually only get about 10 grams of fiber daily. So without the fiber, this would actually be a way to keep yourself regular, if it is true.

If it is, then the need for fiber is not as much as they say. Maybe we need the fiber, because we don't eat enough meat??

EXOTEC Posts: 3,327
11/14/13 6:00 P

In re: protein requirements --
I wasn't able to find any reliable sources for protein toxicity. There are mentions of high dietary protein being tough on your kidneys (where urea is processed), but most warnings are only directed towards those who already have renal disease.

The "official" recommendations are for 10% - 35% of daily calories from protein.
I tend to suspect official recommendations, since so much of it is proving to have been inaccurate. However, the value listed cross-references to several sites (for which I have no surprise - many pieces of old data also share that characteristic). Nevertheless.

From WebMD:
“Adults in the U.S. are encouraged to get 10% to 35% of their day's calories from protein foods. That's about 46 grams of protein for women, and 56 grams of protein for men.”

According to Erin Coleman (registered and licensed dietitian):
"Consuming too much protein can make you sick.
While protein is an essential nutrient, excess dietary protein can lead to health problems. Too much protein can put an extra strain on your kidneys...and can also cause metabolic toxins to build up in your blood, nausea, diarrhea, and even death..."

From MedLinePlus:

From an article in the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism:

EELPIE Posts: 2,700
11/14/13 3:59 P

This is a really interesting topic for me, because I remember when growing up, low fat became all the fad. Now things starting to (slowly) turn to higher fat, and meats, and lower carb.

2 years ago, I would have said no way to more fats (conditioning?) but now I've changed my eating habits. lavkarbo høyfett

I'm gonna give it 6 weeks, and see what happens. I'm doing slow-carb, which (in theory) should work best for me.

Oh - one thing, since I started this, my hair feels fabulous!! I don't know if it's the more protein, extra fat, the fact that I'm eating clean (nothing processed) or all three, but hair is more full and silky feeling - it really looks great!!

Edited by: EELPIE at: 11/14/2013 (16:03)
ELSELTZ SparkPoints: (2,912)
Fitness Minutes: (3,613)
Posts: 49
11/14/13 3:56 P

I have had success in the past in dropping a lot of weight on an extremely low fat diet (back when it was popular). Cutting fat cuts a LOT of calories. However, I also had a lot of mood swings and depression/anxiety symptoms. I have since done some reading that leads me to believe this is not a coincidence - I was depriving my brain of the needed fat to function properly.

This time around, I eat on the high end or over my recommended allowance of fats and am losing weight more slowly because I stay close to the upper end of my recommended calories. However, my moods stay very positive and stable. Maybe I have just matured, but I really like feeling sane and capable while losing weight, rather than crazy and desperate.

RUSSELL_40 Posts: 16,826
11/14/13 3:19 P

I am a low carber, and love meat. I tend to eat 25-30 % protein, so I don't have extra to turn into glucose when carbs I do eat run out, so I never have eaten 40 % on purpose. I am sure I have on certain days, but now, I have tended to plan things out, and vary little.

Toxic, seems to be a little strong. I saw a video stating that over 35 % protein caused nausea, and diarrhea, but skeptical. It may be true if someone just went from 20 % to 40 %.. (ex. Thanksgiving ). lol, but I know some Sparkfriends that eat nothing but meat, with no side effects like this.

The other thing I want to say, is that 40 % protein is almost impossible to get to, eating regular meals. I eat 4 XL eggs every morning, but they are just 12 % protein. I cook them in butter, which is 0 % protein. Most proteins, are not eaten alone, and so when I have chicken thighs, which are over 40 % protein ( barely, at 45 % ), I tend to have them with oil ( fat ), and vegetable ( carbs ), so that drops down.

A 40 % diet would require you to not only just eat meat, but not fatty meat either. Meat has fat, and the fattier cuts of meat are under 40 % protein. If my chicken thighs weren't skinless, they wouldn't be over 40 % protein, because fat would be much higher. I just don't see any reason to eat the skin, which I don't really like.

So, while I agree that a 40 % diet might not be possible, or desirable, it is most likely not toxic. Did someone suggest a high protein diet?

Another note: If a 60 % protein diet could consumed, that would leave just 40 % for fat and carbohydrates. Whether you are low fat, or low carb, you use one of these for fuel, so you need more. I eat 60 % fat, and 10 % carbs, but fuel is 70 % of my 1850 calories a day. Protein is not a fuel. It is their to maintain muscle mass, and used in some chemical reactions, and cell functions. It won't give you energy, except in those rare circumstances when it is converted to glucose, which it does not do efficiently, or in large enough doses to matter.

So whether it is 50 % carbs, and 30 % fat, or 10/60, we need 70-80 % fuel, and the rest is protein. Protein is not a major factor in diet and weight loss, except to maintain muscle mass, and metabolism. Changing fat %, or carb %, has a much more immediate, and larger effect.

LOLA_LALA Posts: 659
11/13/13 10:10 P

I couldn't agree with you more, Bunny...

BUNNYKICKS Posts: 2,433
11/12/13 10:37 P

"over 40% protein is toxic" - say what? I have never heard a statement like this before. And i frankly don't believe it could possibly be true.

KAPELAKIN Posts: 1,984
11/12/13 9:05 P

It really doesn't leave vegetables and fruits. I'm factoring that in to my statement, because I eat many, many veggies, and while they provide lots of good stuff, they don't provide me adequate calories, with the exception of say, potatoes and winter squash, which have more starch..

If over 40% protein is toxic, then a person on an 2,000 calorie diet could have 800 calories of protein. So they can then have most of the rest in fruits and veggies. However, for instance, broccoli has 7 grams of protein for each 11 grams of net carbs in a "large stalk", and it has a little fat in there too, about a gram. So the broccoli on its own is 31% protein. If your 2,000 calorie diet was made up of broccoli only, you would need to eat about 37 cups of broccoli. I realize that no one is saying to do this, but my point is... the broccoli figures into your protein total, and the net carbs it contains aren't generally going to provide enough calories, at least for the usual active person. You can eat LOTS of broccoli and still be in the low carb range.

Most fruits aren't particularly low on the glycemic index. They are full of fructose, which affects blood sugar most directly. Yes, they are better than fruit juice or soda, but they are still sugary, and their GI can be tempered if they're eaten with - you guessed it - fat. Berries and citrus are good bets, and they can be worked into a lower-carb diet as well.

I guess my ultimate point is that fruits and veggies have their place in a higher-fat diet, but once the real carb-bomb foods are eliminated, and if proteins are kept within safe levels, a person will end up with what is considered by many to the a higher-fat diet. I actually blogged about my food choices over the past week if you'd like to take a look. What struck me looking back at it, is that I don't think the menu would jump out at anyone as low-carb or high-fat, but it just naturally is that way as a result of eating mostly meat, eggs and vegetables and limited amounts of fruit.

MANDIETERRIER1 Posts: 17,581
11/12/13 4:07 P

Good points Russel

RUSSELL_40 Posts: 16,826
11/12/13 3:33 P

The problem is not the diets, but their implementation. Low fat was intended to work one way, and we would all eat healthy carbs, fats, and proteins. That hasn't been the case though, and that is the major reason for its " failure ". It was sabotaged, when food producers came up with things like low fat Twinkies, which no one expected to happen.

You CAN lose weight, and be healthy on a low fat, or low carb diet, as long as you do it correctly, which is a big IF.

As a low carber, I see people doing low carb incorrectly all the time, and I know as soon as they say what they are doing, they will fail. There is more to dieting than just eating low carbs, or low fat. One can make a very unhealthy diet that fits either option.

The goal should be to find out the intent of the diet, and stick to its principles. Low fat diets had a list of what we should eat, and if you actually stick to that, it can work for you. The same is true of low carb. Atkins actually has 2 pages of the list in his book. Many carbs are excluded. Some vegetables, even.

So if all you worry about is low fat, or low carb, and you get sick, and obese, the problem wasn't the diet, but how it was implemented.

The current guidelines are for 30 % fat.. hardly low fat, even if I consume double that. I think we should not be picking sides, and throwing dirt at each other, because for many, depending on how it is implemented, both diets work, for them, and that is what is important. If the goal is to help people get healthy, we should determine which diet works best for them, and then make sure they know the best way to implement it, to increase the rate of success.

Personally, I don't care if low fat worked for everyone. I am partial to low carb, because it worked for ME. I will not trash low fat though, because for many it works, and instead of attacking the diet, we should look at why they are failing, and look for ways to avoid as many of these as possible. The same should be done for low carb.

Both diets have some benefit, and we should be looking to get the two to add up to 100 %, so everyone is healthy. If that is 80 % low fat, and 20 % low carb, or 50/50, would it matter?

MANDIETERRIER1 Posts: 17,581
11/12/13 3:09 P

I am against super low fat. There are some foods that are supposed to have fat in them

And usually the foods that have the fat removed, it is replaced with salt and sugar.

FIREFLY423 Posts: 54
11/12/13 2:16 P

Well, it actually leaves low-glycemic Vegetables and Fruits.

BUBBLEJ1 Posts: 2,981
11/11/13 10:10 P

I usually end up at the top of my fat range, mid protein, and lower end (or just under) my carbs. This is how I naturally eat, and I lost 40ish lb while eating this way, with reduced calories.

KAPELAKIN Posts: 1,984
11/11/13 9:58 P

That PDF shows the Swedish "food circle" that it says has been in place since 1992. The article I linked to was for a study completed in May, 2013. I don't know if the Swedish government has formally updated dietary guidelines based on the new study, but I kind of doubt it.

That is an interesting publication with other countries' dietary recommendations. It's strange that the Mediterranean food pyramid recommends bread and pasta with every meal, but potatoes only weekly. I personally think potatoes are preferable to bread or pasta, but it seems that they should be at least interchangeable.

My body is much more resilient to missing meals, running longer without fuel, and less prone to craving and mood swings when I keep all carbs down, and eliminate processed carbs completely (including whole wheat/oatmeal etc).. Over 40% or so protein is toxic, so the only calorie source that leaves is fat.

EXOTEC Posts: 3,327
11/11/13 9:01 P

Thank you for that link. It's a big document... I expect it to take time to work through it all.
I'll be reading it and hopefully have some thoughts to share.

Thanks again.

LOLA_LALA Posts: 659
11/11/13 8:53 P

Thanks, Becky, for comprehensive, very feasible set of guidelines. I don't see any of the food fads we too often hear about in the U.S. within those nations' recommendations, either.

11/11/13 8:26 P

I think this PDF contains the "actual" dietary guidelines for Sweden, as well as a few other countries. The guidelines look very similar to the US in regards to the food groups, use of fats, carbs, etc:

Your SP Registered Dietitian

EXERTIGER Posts: 971
11/11/13 4:10 P

no, but i read the labels to make sure it wasn't replaced with something yucky.

GIPPER1961 Posts: 769
11/11/13 12:52 P

I personally do follow a lower carb higher fat mixture. My main objection to the prevailing guidelines is that they treat everyone as exactly the same no matter what other conditions may be present. We are told that we must eat healthy whole grains, but what about people with gluten sensitivities? They don't eat grains (mostly) and they can be very healthy. People with nut allergies eliminate foods out of necessity. Lactose intolerant people eat no dairy with perfectly healthy results. No one tells vegans that they simply must eat meat and dairy to be healthy

If I could eat everything in moderation I would love it, but after binging for 35 years trying to, I know I can't eat sugar or grains even in moderation. While that is not an allergy, it is a restriction.

I truly believe that people should educate themselves and not just what the 'experts' tell us. Knowing the facts and knowing our bodies we can make good decision about what to put in our mouths that will make us healthy.

After ignoring most of the prevalent advice I am down 85 pounds, have healthy sugar, cholesterol and blood pressure. That may not work for everyone but for me it is a life saver

EXOTEC Posts: 3,327
11/11/13 12:02 A

I'm also in the higher fat group. I try to keep that macro in highest percentage, with protein moderate and carbs as low as I can stand! I'm such a carb addict... that's the most difficult aspect for me. I eat plenty of healthy fats, though, and avoid any reduced fat items of any kind. When eating meat, I try to limit my consumption of typical commercially-finished animals to lean cuts... but if I get pastured, grass-fed, or grass-finished ones, I choose the fattiest cuts I can find.

Here's a "fix" for that link below:

11/10/13 11:42 P

All in moderation--it's not what you eat but how much you eat. Without fat these low-fat foods simply have little or no taste. I'll stick to using butter instead of margarine and grapeseed or olive oil instead of a no-stick pan (plus a little on my salad greens). Why I even have a jar of coconut oil (pure extra virgin) which I haven't tried yet but will when the need arises--and it won't be in my hair!

I've been buying 2% milk lately only because the homogenized (3.25%) is either sold out or more expensive. I only really use in in my tea or coffee and the occasional bowl of cereal.

Edited by: FIATVOLUNTASTUA at: 11/10/2013 (23:44)
ALGEBRAGIRL Posts: 1,925
11/10/13 10:52 P

The headline is misleading.

KAPELAKIN Posts: 1,984
11/10/13 9:52 P

Sweden has actually come out with an endorsement of high-fat, low-carb diets recently.

It's taken me a while to get the low-fat dogma out of my head, but I'm now maintaining my weight with a high fat diet. I haven't tracked it, but I would guess that I'm around 20 carb, 20 protein, 60 fat most days, and it's great. I don't get the sugar cravings or any light-headedness or "must eat now" feelings like when I ate a higher-carb diet. I think where higher-fat can be a problem is when it's coupled with lots of carbs, and like many mentioned, processed junk, and also because it can be easy to skip the veggies on a low-carb diet. As a rule, I avoid all of what I call "fractionated food" - food where something has been taken out, like low-fat dairy or egg whites without the yolk.

SIMPLYME80 Posts: 406
11/10/13 8:21 P

I don't care much for fat free food items but low fat 1 or 2 % seems to be ok for me. Be careful of sugars and sodium which are often added to fat free or low fat foods. As far as high carb, starch is converted to sugar in the body, If not used, excess sugar turns into body fat. So not a fan of high carb diets either.

HOUNDLOVER1 Posts: 8,869
11/10/13 3:11 P

I look at it this way: I'm not against low-fat, bu I am for high-fat and low-carb, including lots of saturated fat. This is the only way of eating that keep my blood sugar levels normal and my lipid profile great.
There may be medical situations where a low-fat diet is beneficial, but for me it would lead to binge eating.

TINA8605 SparkPoints: (99,668)
Fitness Minutes: (12,395)
Posts: 1,764
11/10/13 3:08 P

I have found the best diet for most people is middle of the road for all food groups. Besides, lowfat and fat free foods just don't taste good. If you lower one food item, another one goes up. I enjoy all foods. I just watch the amounts that I consume. Since I am in a weight loss mode at this time, I choose to eat less fattening foods or less carbs but I don't buy any low, reduced, free items.

11/10/13 11:33 A

You are correct, that you could lower your fat intake, to help lower your calorie intake and lose weight. But you do need some fat in your diet for daily body functions (essential fatty acids). It is why SP members should be within their SP fat range on most days of the week.

Your SP Registered Dietitian

RUNUXTOO Posts: 136
11/10/13 9:43 A

What about us fatso people. Don't we carry our own fat? Why not use the fat we stored in our body first? This makes sense to me. When I am normal weight then I will introduce fat in my food intake. I agree that carbs are not a good substitue for low fat. So I reduce carbs and cut the fat.

SPARKBJOK SparkPoints: (159,363)
Fitness Minutes: (132,965)
Posts: 4,606
11/10/13 9:27 A

I just try to be aware of the amount of fat I take in. I don't go for low-fat or no-fat foods - we do need some fat. I try to eat whole foods as much as possible.

DEANNA0725 SparkPoints: (22,611)
Fitness Minutes: (13,947)
Posts: 2,072
11/10/13 9:11 A

I am more aware of the low-fat push now and pay very close attention to the ingredients in my food. I have changed a few things in my diet from low-fat to "regular" fat and I haven't noticed any differences in my body.

11/10/13 8:37 A

I do coconut oil, peanut butter, eggs, avocados, fish, and try for higher fat and lower carbs... check out Dr. Mercola.. he has many articles on this... here is one...

ALGEBRAGIRL Posts: 1,925
11/9/13 1:50 P

It depends on what you mean when you say, 'low-fat'? When people say that, there's an image of a diet devoid of fats or loaded with low-fat but very caloric food items. Just looking at my daily intake shocks me when I realize how much fat is in my diet to begin with. Meat contains a lot of fat, low-fat dairy contains a surprising amount of fat. But what really pushes fat upwards in the final tally is portion size.

I make an effort to not slather fat on anything I can possibly eat without fat added. That means that vegetables are plain, cooked without fats added. Eaten without fats added. Bread contains fat, unless I bake it myself to make that low-fat. So, where does that fat come from when I look at the amounts at the end of the day? Meat. Dairy. Eggs. Pretty much the centerpiece of a meal. Fry it, sautee it, bake it with some fat added. Only poaching tends to be low-fat but even that can't help a fatty piece of meat.

Actually look at the role fat plays in contributing to your calories at the end of the day tally. It doesn't require you to ever pick up a butter knife.

I eat very little meat these days. I use eggbeaters. I love non-fat cheese (I skip the low-fat varieties). And I still come out with fat playing a big part in my diet. As a for-instance, I try to eat one meal a week with a friend and we eat in an inexpensive restaurant, not fast-food. This one meal gives me enough saturated fat and fat in general to last me a week (I have a burger and fries!)

Edited by: ALGEBRAGIRL at: 11/10/2013 (22:53)
11/9/13 12:37 P

I fixed the link above (and tested it) but here it is again :)

I think most people who are advocate a high fat diet are not demonizing all carbs, non starchy colourful vegetables are so important for their abundance of vitamins and minerals. Low carbers eat a ton of these because they are awesome for us! I eat a high fat diet because I believe that fat not carbs are the ideal fuel source for our bodies.

For me healthy whole grains spike my blood sugar and cause digestive issues (bloating, gas, heartburn). They also cause me to have inflamed joints and extremely dry skin. All of these things go away when I eliminate not only gluten but grains as well. When a person gets 100% of their carbohydrates from low glycemic vegetables and fruits and not from grain and sugar sources their carb intake % will be much lower than the government and SP recommends and in turn their % of calories from of fat will go up.

I personally avoid trans fats and refined seed oils. I eat a lot of saturated fat and have low triglycerides and a nice high HDL.

Edited by: JUSTEATREALFOOD at: 11/9/2013 (13:12)
GYPSYGOTH SparkPoints: (94,944)
Fitness Minutes: (72,557)
Posts: 45,743
11/9/13 11:36 A

Yes, Jennilacey- one of my huge problems is that fat has been replaced with sugar (actually HFCS) in many low-fat foods... which is clearly NOT the answer!!!

And processed food in general. Yes.

I am not trying to demonize, as I said, merely to bring up that the "general consensus," while shifting, is still mis-informing many people. If you read the Nutrition Journal article linked below, the ideals the government still espouses are based on shaky science.

JENNILACEY SparkPoints: (81,972)
Fitness Minutes: (86,286)
Posts: 2,489
11/9/13 11:19 A

I think nearly everyone is against "low fat" diets these days.

If people actually did follow the gov't food guides, obseity wouldn't be an issue despite the high number of recommended grains with emphasis on whole grains. The problem is that people don't.

We live in societies of conveince foods that are pumped full of sugars in combination with fat (which is a highly addictive combination) and heavily refined/processed food. There is no one macronutrient to blame. I also get grumpy when I see people demonizing an entire macronutrient. The bigger picture is industry and poor food choices, food that doesn't satiate you and leads to overeating.

Personally, I take in around 30% fats which is within the gov't recommendations but I still choose low fat foods (with the exception of foods where fat is replaced with added sugar) that are high in saturated fats (and avoid trans fats) to make more room for unsaturated fats.

I don't believe extremes in either direction are necessary for good health and weight management. I don't fear fat but I also don't fear carbs. I just opt for the healthier choices of each.

Edited by: JENNILACEY at: 11/9/2013 (11:20)
RENATARUNS SparkPoints: (4,367)
Fitness Minutes: (2,155)
Posts: 1,379
11/9/13 10:58 A

Actually I think you'll get a lot of support here. There's a ton of advocates of higher-fat eating here, mostly associated with low carb adn/or Paleo, but not always.

For me personally when it comes to "what is the best way to eat" arguments I tend to get grumpy around all sides. But as far as just losing weight and getting into a reasonably healthy way of eating goes (not trying for that elusive perfection) I could not agree more. I think being overly restrictive of fat is more likely to cause problems than to solve them.

GYPSYGOTH SparkPoints: (94,944)
Fitness Minutes: (72,557)
Posts: 45,743
11/9/13 10:36 A

Thanks Becky. I agree that the ranges here allow for great variety and that thankfully no food groups are demonized. Spark is by far the most reasonable and customizable program out there. (Hence why I've stuck around for some ghastly number of years like eight or so).

I just feel, as a growing number of nutrition folks seem to, that the government guidelines which have informed our general knowledge about saturated fat, cholesterol, and carbohydrates were grossly under-informed and pushed out prematurely-- and perpetuated!-- despite not meeting the scientific necessity of replication and a huge amount of evidence to the contrary... that high body cholesterol levels do not seem to be causative of heart disease, merely correlated (possibly a natural protective effect that we are screwing up by treating with drugs?), that the supposed cardiovascular consequences of saturated fat seen in the latter half of the 20th century were in fact resulting from the switch from natural saturated to hydrogenated (trans) fats, and that the push to consume 7-11 servings of grains per day, even with the current emphasis on whole grains, has contributed significantly to the fatness and propensity to disease of the Western population (and those who have adopted Western diets in place of their traditional ones).

I realize that I won't find a lot of support for this here, I am just looking for folks who have seen the same research who might be interested in linking up, since I am not sure what to search for.

Edited by: GYPSYGOTH at: 11/9/2013 (10:42)
SUNSHINE6442 Posts: 2,320
11/9/13 10:31 A

Experts assert that fat causes obesity, raises your cholesterol and causes heart disease, BUT IS THIS REALLY TRUE?

I think that eating healthy fats, which includes cold water mackerel, tuna, sardines, salmon, nuts( all kinds of nuts and seeds), and olive oil is good. Fat provides the body with essential fatty acids like linoleic and linolenic acids. Also protein is a great weight control tool since protein balances out carbs by preventing insulin spikes that can cause a drain in energy and decrease sugar cravings. Drinking water to stay hydrated too....dehydration can lead to hunger cravings.

I personally think carbs are the most problematic not the fats.

11/9/13 9:53 A

I too am against very low fat diets. I think almost everyone in the field of nutrition would agree. I really dislike the term "moderation" but it truly is the one of the best approaches to take when it comes to food intake.

Back in the 70-80's---low fat was thought to be the best for heart health. And while this was the nutrition message; the food industry and restaurant industry responded with piles of pasta, bagels the size of tires, no-fat pastries, etc, etc. Remember those days. This wasn't healthy either!

I think we are now in a much better place nutritionally. The ranges for protein, fat and carbs are wide---allowing for individual preference, cultural preference, food availability, and one's budget. It easily allows for carbs in beans, lentils, milk, yogurt, whole grains, fruit, and even starchy veggies, etc. It allows for bacon and high fat cheeses. It comes down to eating foods in a more whole state, watching out for those overly processed, highly refined foods. Foods can fit; especially when you look at the complete package of your diet over the weeks and months---not just focusing on one particular food.

Your SP Registered Dietitian

GYPSYGOTH SparkPoints: (94,944)
Fitness Minutes: (72,557)
Posts: 45,743
11/9/13 9:01 A

Thanks for the input!

I do think that Spark generally follows the US Gov't guidelines which still suggest many servings of (ideally whole) grains in a day. And I am sure that they emphasize lowering saturated fat intake. I am by no means suggesting that anyone should live on bacon and cheese or anything, but my research into the scientific basis of the original guidelines, and the complete lack of consensus or corroborating evidence for their benefit, is disturbing.

JUSTEATREALFOOD, your team link didn't work so please please re-link me! I looked for a good team but since I'm not considering this necessarily Paleo/Primal, I am not sure what to join!

11/8/13 11:47 P

Mediterranean Paleo sounds very healthy to me!

I eat LCHF - low carb, high fat because it keeps my blood sugar levels low. I get most of my daily calories from fat, over 70%!

You won't find a ton of support on the main message boards about eating this way but here's a team that you may like :)

I think the high end of the spark range is quite high for carbohydrates. My range is 200 to 350 g of carbs a day and I eat under 100 g a day.

Edited by: JUSTEATREALFOOD at: 11/9/2013 (12:34)
SLIMMERKIWI SparkPoints: (256,863)
Fitness Minutes: (41,586)
Posts: 27,294
11/8/13 9:51 P

This sort of work was what my brother did for a living - he was in a hiring/firing position at New Zealand's largest hospital, working in the lab and doing a lot of research. He also taught it at University. He told me years ago when it was discovered that I had very high cholesterol that the research he had done at the time indicated that for most people the blood test results were almost meaningless. He said it was more beneficial for those with an elevated risk factor or who had coronary, stroke or diabetes, already. (That probably covers a high % of the population anyway.) My late husband had his Cholesterol done, and it was in the very low/normal range. He is the one who had the heart attacks, and he was the one who died having the 4th heart attack. He ate heaps more fat than me (I don't like the feel of fat/oil in my mouth) and when I started recording my nutrition, altho' I knew I ate a low-fat diet, discovered that it was waaayyy below the recommended level. I had to work to get it up. (Doing this also helped deal with the constipation) My husband's lifestyle was his downfall - mainly heavy smoking for a lot of years.

I am NOT qualified in Dietetics so I may be wrong, but I think that what most health professionals suggest is cutting trans fats and saturated fats back to as little as possible. . Probably most people would eat way too much of these.

I haven't seen on SP or most anywhere else that support a 'high-carb' diet, unless your definition of high carb differs from mine. SP gives a middle-of-the-road range and suggests plenty of fruit/veges, lean protein, healthy fats, and healthy carbs.


Edited by: SLIMMERKIWI at: 11/8/2013 (21:52)
11/8/13 8:52 P

I haven't necessarily formed an opinion, but google can help you search, this site, or others. low fat diet

Paste that into a google search for a spark specific search.

Edited by: INTOTHENEW at: 11/9/2013 (07:03)
GYPSYGOTH SparkPoints: (94,944)
Fitness Minutes: (72,557)
Posts: 45,743
11/8/13 6:51 P

The search function on these boards doesn't really work, so I hope I'm not being redundant, but...

I've always been a skeptic of very low-fat diets (I've seen what they do to people) and things like dairy without fat (you need the fat to get the vitamins!).

I use a lot of coconut and olive oil and real butter and eat a lot of fish, myself (and with the boyfriend there can be a lot of meat and cheese!) and usually chose low or reduced-fat dairy although I don't use a lot of that.

Anyway... I saw a documentary and have been doing some research and now I'm just ANGRY that we've been so misled...nutritionists and health teachers and here on Spark, and on the Biggest Loser (I just read one of their books) all believe because of the government's mistake and continuing oversight that low-fat, high-carb diets will make us healthy, and we should eat less cholesterol, and that's just not proven.

Peer-reviewed with references:

Web-(new-agey)-site with a nice breakdown:

I don't "think" I'm into the whole Paleo thing (how bad can beans possibly be? I just don't like seeing anything totally demonized, except cola, HFCS and hydrogenated oil!) but is it possible to be a Mediterranean Paleo? emoticon

Anyone on board?

Edited by: GYPSYGOTH at: 11/8/2013 (19:01)
Page: 1 of (1)  

Other Diet and Nutrition Topics:

Last Post:
10/19/2016 1:18:40 PM
9/27/2016 12:35:48 PM
1/6/2017 12:32:22 AM
5/3/2017 6:59:30 AM